FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SCHENKER LOGISTICS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Of Recommendation Of A Rights Commissioner R-065748-Ir-08/EH
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that its member was being treated unfairly by the Company and that the Company failed to carry out a proper investigation. The worker was employed with the Company from September, 2006 until March, 2009. In November, 2007 the worker lodged a formal written complaint regarding personal harassment by his supervisor. It is the Union's claim that the investigation into the worker's complaint was flawed and that the issue of the worker being late to his workstation was not raised until after he had made the harassment complaint. The Company's position is that the worker received a verbal warning regarding his time keeping in October, 2007 and was again spoken to about his time keeping in November, 2007. He then raised a grievance under the Company's harassment Policy and Procedures.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 14th November, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
" I reject the request for a third party investigation because I have decided that the kernel of this issue is (Worker named) refusal to accept the Company's standards regarding timekeeping.
I have decided that the Company is entitled to set the standards of operation, which includes timekeeping. The Company requires its staff to be at their workstations in time not arriving in the building at that time. I do not see any benefit of having this case re-examined.
(Worker named) has to make his mind up that he either accepts the Company's right to manage or accept the consequences of not complying with the Company's rules.
I recommend that this claim fails."
On the 10th December, 2008 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th March, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1The company has resisted all attempts to properly investigate the worker's complaint of harassment by his supervisor. The Company is failing in its duty of care owed to the worker and does not consider the repeated public humiliation and ridiculing of its staff as acts of harassment.
2 The worker requested an independent third party be appointed to investigate the complaints. The Company did not follow the procedures and the requests by our member for a fair and impartial investigation into the issues raised by the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The worker was verbally warned regarding his time keeping in October, 2007. He was recorded as being late on ten occasions after this warning.
2 The internal investigator was based at a different office location, in line with what the worker had requested.
DECISION:
The appeal of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation before the Court is on behalf of the worker who was dissatisfied with the Company's investigation into his complaints of bullying and harassment. The Rights Commissioner Recommendation upheld the Company's position.
Having examined the submissions of both parties, the Court is satisfied that a fair and thorough investigation was conducted into all complaints made by the worker. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that the procedures adopted were in accordance with the Company's "Personal Harassment Policy and Procedure" and were in line with the Code of Practice S.I. 17 of 2002 "Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace".
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and dismisses the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st May, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.