FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MOORE CLEANING SERVICES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-074920-ir-09/RG
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates as a contract cleaning firm and holds the contract for the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland on St. Stephen's Green Dublin. The Claimant who is employed as a Janitor became concerned when she was issued with a letter from Management which proposed to reduce the number of hours she worked from 7 hours per day to 2 hours per day and gave her one months notice.
The issue involves a claim by the Union. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 2nd October 2009, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
" I recommend the Employer pay the Claimant compensation of €2,000.00, within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation for the stress caused to the Claimant".
On the 22nd October, 2009 the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 11th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There were on-going issues between the Worker and her two Supervisors regarding her time keeping and the quality of her work.
2. In January 2009 a complaint of bullying and harassment was made by the Worker against both Supervisors and the Union requested that an investigation be carried out by Management. An investigation was carried out and the only outcome was that the Worker was allowed to take a few weeks off work at the Company's expense.
3. The Company failed to comply with it's own policy on bullying and harassment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker is the Janitor in a high profile job and her work is open to scrutiny all of the time and has to be of a very high standard. The customer had made complaints regarding the quality of her work to Management, who in turn raised the issued with the Worker.
2. When the allegation of bullying and harassment was made against the two Supervisors, Management carried out an investigation into the events and found no evidence of bullying or harassment having taken place. The matter was closed and no further action was necessary.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by the Employer of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found for the Claimant and awarded her the sum €2,000 in compensation for the Employer’s alleged failure to investigate an allegation of bullying.
Having considered the oral and written submissions made by both parties, the Court is satisfied that the Employer made attempts to find a resolution to the difficulties which arose in the working relationships between two members of Management and the Claimant.
By invoking the informal procedure of the Company’s“Policy on Preventing and Dealing With Bullying/Harassment at Work”the Employer initiated a process to bring about a resolution and to restore good working relations. However, the Court is not satisfied that this process was brought to completion by the Employer because even though the matter was eventually resolved it was more by coincidence of circumstances than by the actions of the Employer.
Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account, the Court has decided to vary the award recommended by the Rights Commissioner and instead to award a sum of €750 to the Claimant in full and final settlement of this claim.
The Court so decides
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st March, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.