FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY J.J. FITZGERALD & COMPANY, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Unfair treatment by Employer undermining dignity at work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant commenced work in the check-out area of the Thurles branch of Dunnes Stores in 2003. Difficulties in the relationship between the Claimant and the Human Resources Manager came to a head in 2008 which in turn has led to the current grievance of alleged intimidation and harassment.
On the 1st July, 2009, the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company wrote to the Court declining the invitation to attend the hearing.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd March, 2010. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The personnel records which contain allegations regarding the "abuse of the system" by the Claimant regarding her absence from work ought to be expunged from the record.
2. The Claimant should be treated in the same manner as other staff and be allowed to visit the bathroom whenever she requests and she should be allowed to apply for time off on the Monday following a holiday.
3. The Claimant was subjected to intimidating and harassing behaviour which caused her to be absent from work and all monies which she would have earned during these absences should now be paid to her.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the Company did not attend the hearing or otherwise communicate with it in respect to the issues in dispute.
In is apparent that the issues forming the subject of this referral are symptomatic of deeper difficulties which the Claimant has experienced in her employment relationship. It became clear in the course of the hearing that these difficulties have had a profound effect on the Claimant. It seems to the Court that these underlying difficulties should be addressed through the internal grievance procedures within the employment and using the services of the Claimant's Trade Union if necessary. As a matter of good employment practice the Company should cooperate with the Claimant and her Trade Union in utilising those procedures to maximum effect.
With regard to the specific issues referred to it the Court recommends as follows:-
Incidents in 2008
On the uncontested evidence of the Claimant the Court must hold that it is unfair to maintain a record of these incidents on the Claimant's personnel file. The Court recommends that any reference to these incidents be deleted now.
Personal Breaks
The Claimant should be facilitated in such breaks as she requires.
Loss of Earnings
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd March, 2010______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.