FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LIMERICK CO. COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. SEO Competition, DPE Posts, PLO Post & Travelling Expenses
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant has been employed continuously for the past 14 years by Limerick County Council and currently holds the post of Senior Executive Engineer in its Road Design Office at Mungret, Co. Limerick. The Claimant has had a broad spectrum of grievances over the years with his Employer which were investigated on two occasions by the Rights Commissioner and once by the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Claimant and his Union are of the opinion that the Recommendations suggested have not been complied with in an appropriate manner and they are seeking to have their reservations adequately addressed regarding four specific claims.
On the 7th May 2008, the Claimant referred the four issues to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th February, 2009.
The Claimant and Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The four specific claims before the Court were never investigated in a competent manner and as the substantive issues were never dealt with,it is grossly unfair to the Claimant
2. In the interests of fairness and natural justice the four issues need to be looked at again by the Court.
3.The methodology of the investigation was never adjudicated on by the Court.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council accepted the Recommendations of both the Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court. An independent investigation was carried out as recommended and its findings are fully accepted by the Council.
2. The Council contends that all Industrial Relations issues have already been addressed and therefore cannot be continually pursued through the Labour Court by the Claimant and his Union.
3. The Council believe that all it's action in this case were both reasonable and fair.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court, which was brought under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 concerns four claims referred by the worker against Limerick County Council, as follows:
-Competition for Senior Executive Officer
-Post of Deputy Project Engineer
-Project Liaison Post
-Determination of Base for the Payment of Travelling Expenses
Local Government Management Services Board (LGMSB) representing Management at the County Council submitted that the worker was debarred from pursuing these matters, as they have already been the subject of adjudication and investigation.
The Union, on behalf of the worker submitted that although there have been both Rights Commissioner’s and Labour Court Recommendations on the issues in dispute and an independent investigation has been carried out; the four specific issues have not been adequately addressed.
The Court notes that a referral to the Rights Commissioner in 2003 dealt with all four issues, which are the subject of this claim. At that time the Rights Commissioner issued a Recommendation, which stated that:
- “the basic argument put forward by [the worker], as clarified during these Hearings, is that the long sequence of events described by him in his submissions amount to a campaign of bullying and harassment against him by the Council. The Council, for their part, deny that any such campaign has taken place.”
Both parties accepted the Recommendation and an examination was carried out by the suggested third party.
The investigation included an examination of the four issues (the subject of this claim) however, in relation to one of the worker’s concerns - his claim regarding the “Competition for Senior Executive Officer”, the investigators stated that they lacked the experience to examine the interview process within the County Council however, they stated:
- “The process does appear to be constant for all employees and, therefore, it would not seem that [the worker] was the only staff member affected by this interview process.”
The investigators did not find in favour of the worker’s claims and concluded that none of the allegations of bullying and harassment were upheld. The Court is of the view that while there may have been a lacuna in the process due to the inexperience of the investigators in the County Council’s interview process, the investigators did not deem it necessary to recommend any further action in that regard. Furthermore, even if it was found necessary, as the Competition for Senior Executive Officer was held in 2001, due to the passage of time the Court is of the view that it would not be feasible to recommend any further investigation into the matter at this point.
Subsequent to the investigation, the worker submitted a claim under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to the Labour Court claiming that the County Council had failed to comply with the Right’s Commissioner Recommendation. His grievance was principally concerned with the methodology of the investigation.
The Court found that the County Council had complied fully with the terms of the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and had cooperated fully with the third party in carrying out the investigation. It also found that there were no grounds to find fault with how the investigation was carried out.
Having examined all aspects of the current claim before the Court, it is of the view that it is now being asked to adjudicate on all four issues again. The Court is of the view that all of these issues have been the subject matter of a previous adjudication by a Rights Commissioner. That Recommendation was not appealed, both parties fully complied with the investigation carried out by the worker’s suggested independent third party and the Court has already upheld the methodology used in the course of the investigation.
Therefore, since these matters have been adjudicated upon previously; the County Council has complied with the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation, the investigators findings and the previous Labour Court Recommendation; then the Court recommends that the worker should accept that no further progress can be made on the four issues referred.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd March, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.