FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY BRENDAN T MULDOWNEY & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Company's alleged failure to follow its Grievance Procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker in relation to the Company's alleged failure to conduct a proper investigation into a complaint raised by the Worker against her former Store Manager pertaining to the manner in which he carried out a seperate investigation following an incident which occurred in the workplace in August, 2006. The Worker contends that following the workplace incident, she raised a complaint to her Store Manager. The findings of the investigation into this complaint suggested that the workplace incident had been a misunderstanding and the complaint was therefore not substantiated. The Worker raised a further complaint in relation to how the Store Manager conducted his investigation. After a delay the Employer agreed to carry out a further investigation in an attempt to appease the Worker's grievances. A further investigation was then carried out in line with the Employer's Grievance Procedures. The Employer contends that it acted in accordance with the terms of its Grievance Procedures and that every avenue had been exhausted in this instance. The Worker, in an effort to pursue the issue further, made an application to the Rights Commissioner Service of the Labour Relations Commission however the Employer, for reasons outlined to the Court, objected to the matter being heard by a Rights Commissioner and chose not to attend a Rights Commissioner hearing.
On the 8th April, 2011 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st July, 2012.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker has been treated in an inequitable manner resulting from the Employer's failure to address the issues raised by the Worker with regards to the conduct of her former Store Manager.
2. The Employer has failed to follow its Grievance Procedures and failed to carry out a proper investigation following a workplace incident which occurred.
3. The Employer caused undue delay in addressing the issues raised by the Worker.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is of the view that the issues initially raised by the Worker were appropriately dealt with following the incident which occurred in 2006.
2. The Employer contends that every possible effort has been made to address the complaints made by the Worker however at this juncture the Employer asserts that the issue cannot be pursued any further.
3. The Employer maintains that the Worker was afforded fair opportunity to have her issues addressed and every avenue was exhausted in an attempt to address the Worker's grievances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court notes that the staff involved in the incident relating to the passing of a relevant letter to the Applicant did not intend any offence to her and offered to apologise for the unintended consequences of their actions. As the Applicant went on sick leave before it could be arranged, that meeting never took place. Had it taken place the Company could reasonably have believed that the matter was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Unfortunately following the onset of the Applicant's illness a chain of misunderstandings commenced between the parties that got out of hand and gave rise to the matter ultimately coming before the Court in a less than satisfactory manner.
The Court is satisfied that both sides acted honourably and out of conviction in this matter. The Court also takes the view that nothing will be served by continuing further with this dispute.
Accordingly the Court recommends that both parties put the matter firmly behind them; that the Company confirm in writing to the Applicant that her job remains open and makes arrangements with her for an orderly and amicable return to work. For her part the Applicant should decide whether she wishes to return to work or resign her position.
Should she decide to return to work the Applicant should make arrangements to do so within four weeks of the date of this Recommendation. Should she decide to resign the Company should, within a similar timeframe, provide her with a reference that reflects her service and performance with the Company.
Finally the Court recommends that this entire process be completed within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation at which time the Applicant should have returned to work or have resigned her position and the Company have supplied her with a reference in the terms set out above.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
3rd August 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.