FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Breach of Dignity at Work Policy
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute relates to an alleged breach of the Dignity at Work Policy by Cork City Council. Two Senior Engineering Staff made claims of bullying against an Assistant City Manager which were upheld by an Independent Investigator whose findings were not appealed. The Unions claims that the Council, through the new City Manager, failed to accept the finding and thereby breached the terms of the Dignity at Work Policy. It also claims that a second breach occurred when one of the Engineers was (despite his objections) moved to a different section . The Council rejects the claims in their totality.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th September, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the , 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's position is that the outcome of the investigation should stand and the Council must implement the terms of its findings, otherwise it will be in breach of its own procedures..
2. The sudden transfer of one of the Complainants out of the Traffic Department to the Water Department despite his objections, gave his work colleagues the impression that he was guilty of some misdemeanour rather than a victim, in this case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The City Manager considered that it was not appropriate for any disciplinary action due mainly to the fact that the Assistant City Manager's submission was not taken into account by the Investigator prior to him publishing his findings.
2. The transfer of one of the Complainants, one year after the dispute was first aired, had nothing to do with the complaint but due solely to the rationalisation of Senior Management structures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute. The Court finds that the investigation into the complaints made by the two Claimants before the Court was conducted in accordance with the terms of the Dignity at Work Procedures in force in the Council. The Court further finds, on the basis of the evidence before it that the findings of the investigation were not appealed by either side and accordingly stand in accordance with the terms of the Dignity at Work Policy.
The Court notes that Council Management relies on the terms of the Policy as justification for its subsequent actions regarding the findings of the investigation. Implicitly therefore Management has accepted the findings of the investigation and has decided, on the basis of legal advice which it declined to disclose to either the Complainants or the Court, to take no further action of foot of those findings. The Court finds that this decision was therefore neither properly nor adequately explained to the Complainants.
The Court finds that the Complainants are entitled to a proper explanation of the reasons for the actions management proposes to take on foot of the findings of the investigation. Furthermore there is an obligation on Management to reassure them that action has been taken in respect of the individual involved and more generally that it will ensure that they never experience such treatment from a member of Management again.
One of the Complainants was, against his will, transferred from his post under the auspices of a Management Restructuring. The Court is satisfied that the context in which Management effected this transfer renders it inappropriate and contrary to the provisions of the Dignity at Work Procedure. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Complainant be offered the opportunity to return to his former post. Such an offer should be made to him with immediate effect. He should respond definitively to the offer within four weeks of the date of this Recommendation. Should he opt to return to his former position Management should arrange to effect his transfer within 12 weeks of the date of this Recommendation.
The Court further recommends that the Council pay each of the Complainants compensation in the sum of €5,000 as recompense for its failure to complete the process of dealing with the complaints to completion as required by the Dignity at Work Policy in effect in the Council
Finally the Court recommends that Management, in consultation with the trade unions involved, take appropriate steps to restore confidence in the capacity of the Council to deal effectively with complaints of bullying in a fair and effective manner.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30th November, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.