FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BROTHERS OF CHARITY SERVICES GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - PNA DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Grievance of an individual worker
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member for the reimbursement of legal fees. The Worker has been employed by the Brothers of Charity for over 30 years. In October, 2008 the Residential Institutions Redress Board informed the worker that an allegation of abuse had been made against her. The Worker informed her employer of the situation. She engaged a Solicitor to help clear her good name at the Redress Board. The cost of defending herself was considerable. The Accusation was subsequently withdrawn at the hearing and the worker was vindicated. The Union is seeking that the Brothers of Charity cover the legal fees of the Worker. The Employer rejects this claim on the basis that it was not party to the proceedings and no request for financial assistance was made before the Worker engaged a solicitor.
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 30th November 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Employer has a duty of care to the Worker. The Employer set up an office to highlight the work of the Redress Board at a cost of hundreds of thousands of euro. It is the right thing to do to pay the Worker's reasonable costs.
2 The Union has no doubt that the motivation of the Employer in setting up an office to highlight the work of the Redress Board was positive and altruistic in favour of persons who suffered abuse. However, its refusal to recognise that its activities caused damage to an innocent Worker is unacceptable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Residential Institutions Redress Board in Ireland was set up to hear cases in camera and in private. It covers all residential accommodation in Ireland, including the Brothers of Charity. The Brothers of Charity is there to support its service users and staff alike on a personal level. If a service user has to attend the Redress Board, it does not pay its legal fees. Therefore it is not conceivable that it will pay the legal costs of the Worker. The Employer has never paid costs for service user's or staff in the past. There is no basis for this claim.
2 The Worker engaged a solicitor before informing the Employer. She never asked to have her legal costs covered in part or in total by the Employer. The Employer never gave its blessing in advance of her engaging legal advice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim on behalf of one worker for the reimbursement of legal fees incurred when she was required to attend a hearing before the Residential Institutions Redress Board in order to clear her good name. The case was subsequently withdrawn by her accuser. However, in the meantime the Claimant had incurred the expense of engaging a legal representative and she subsequently sought reimbursement of those fees.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that it would not be normal practice for an employer to pay legal costs associated with an employee involved in legal proceedings, especially where the employer is not a party to those proceedings. Consequently, the Court sees no reason to depart from that norm and accordingly rejects the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th January, 2012______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.