FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO (IRELAND) LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ir-079288-ir-09/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the manner in which the Company investigated complaints which the Worker made against her Section Manager and Store Manager. The Worker claims that the Company adopted a negative attitude towards her in an attempt to get her to change her contract of employment. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 21st October, 2009 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I recommend that a thorough investigation be carried out into the allegations made by [the Worker] against the Store Manager pertaining to the incident. I recommend that all witnesses should be interviewed and that CCTV footage be examined if still available. I recommend that this investigation should be carried out by a Senior Manager who is sufficiently distanced from all parties to this dispute. I recommend that the report should elaborate on the findings and justify the decision in detail. I recommend that the report should elaborate on the findings and justify the decision in detail. I recommend that this report should also address how the Company intend to deal with [the Worker's] perception of the fractious working relationship that appears to exist and which received some mention by [the Senior Manager who investigated the Worker's complaint]”.
- “I recommend that a thorough investigation be carried out into the allegations made by [the Worker] against the Store Manager pertaining to the incident. I recommend that all witnesses should be interviewed and that CCTV footage be examined if still available. I recommend that this investigation should be carried out by a Senior Manager who is sufficiently distanced from all parties to this dispute. I recommend that the report should elaborate on the findings and justify the decision in detail. I recommend that the report should elaborate on the findings and justify the decision in detail. I recommend that this report should also address how the Company intend to deal with [the Worker's] perception of the fractious working relationship that appears to exist and which received some mention by [the Senior Manager who investigated the Worker's complaint]”.
3. 1.TheCompany strictly adheres to its Dignity at Work policy and its agreed Grievance Procedure.
2. The Company carried out a full and fair investigation into the issued raised by the Worker.
3.This investigation did not find any evidence that the Worker was bullied or harassed.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's procedures for investigating the Worker's complaints were flawed.
2. It is not acceptable for the Company simply to conclude that the Worker's allegations could not be substantiated.
3. The Worker insists on the appointment of an independent mediator as she has no faith in the Company's ability to investigate her complaints in a fair manner.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal. It is noted that the Company has offered to have a Store Director appointed to undertake the function recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
The Court believes that a person of that level of seniority, from outside the Dublin / Wicklow Region, should be appointed for that purpose. The Court is not satisfied that an independent mediation process is either appropriate or necessary at this time. Accordingly, the Court affirms the Rights Commissioner recommendation with the proviso stated above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th August, 2010______________________
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.