FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Decision r-097182-ir-10/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker has been employed by the Company in their Ballymun Store since 1995. In May 2010 the Worker was called into the Manager's office and questioned as to why some duties had not been done correctly and on time. The Worker made a complaint regarding what she felt was a denial of her right to be treated with respect. Due to the non-availability of personnel the matter was not dealt with through the normal internal procedures. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 6th April 2011, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"The claimant is working for the Company for 16 years and is entitled to be treated with respect. Based on the evidence I am not sure that the Company has dealt with the matter on that basis. However, I agree with them that it should initially be dealt with through the normal internal procedure and would recommend that the claimant and MANDATE agree to this".
On the 15th April, 2011 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 21st July, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The working relationship between the Worker and her Manager continues to be difficult, therefore the Company has failed in its statutory obligations to provide the Worker with a safe place to work and her right to be treated with dignity and respect.
2. It is requested that the Court set aside the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and recommend that a full independent investigation into the dispute be conducted. Compensation should be awarded in this case in order to act as a deterrent to the Company against breaching their own procedures in this matter.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company deny that they refused to investigate the issue and offered to set a date for a grievance hearing before any date for a first third party hearing was set, which was declined by the Union.
2. The correct method of resolving this dispute is by the immediate resumption of local procedures as detailed in the comprehensive Collective Agreements dealing with Grievance and Dignity at Work issues.
DECISION:
The purpose of any grievance procedure is to provide employees with an expeditious means of resolving employment related difficulties. Inordinate delay in activating the procedures, such as occurred in this case, can defeat the effectiveness of the process and undermine the employee confidence in its impartiality.
In the Court's view it is incumbent of the Company to ensure that there is no reoccurrence of what happened in this case and appropriate steps should be taken towards that end.
With regard to the substantial matter in dispute the Court notes that an arrangements similar to that recommended by the Court in Appeal Decision AD1125 would be acceptable to both parties. Accordingly, it is the decision of the Court that an appropriate member of the Company staff from outside the jurisdiction should now conduct the investigation of the Worker's grievance. This investigation should be undertaken without delay and should be conducted in strict compliance with the terms of the Company / Union agreement.
The Court does not consider this to be an appropriate case in which to recommend the payment of compensation.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is modified accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd August, 2011______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.