FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NOONAN SERVICES GROUP LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY LONGFORD CITIZENS INFORMATION SERVICE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-094338-ir-10.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Worker's claim that the Company failed to manage properly complaints made against her. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 26th August, 2011 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I recommend that in full and final settlement of this dispute that the Company remove all documentation from the [Worker's] file including the final written warning ... acknowledge that the procedure was flawed [and] make a once-off payment of €6,000 for the distress caused."
On the 28th September, 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 22nd May, 2012.
3. 1. The Company failed to investigate the allegations made by the Worker in a fair and transparent manner.
2.As the Company's investigation was seriously flawed, the resulting sanction was unwarranted and unsafe.
3.The Company's arbitrary assignation of malicious intent to the Worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company fully investigated the serious allegations made against the Worker.
2.The investigation was carried out in a timely and transparent manner.
3.The Company's decision to issue the Worker with a final written warning was considered and proportionate.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns the employee’s appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation, which found in her favour. The Appellant referred a complaint to the Rights Commissioner alleging that she had been treated unfairly due to the Company’s disregard for its own “Dignity at Work” procedures and its failure to properly manage complaints made against her. The Rights Commissioner found that the Company should remove all documentation from the Appellant’s file relating to the dispute including the final written warning; the Company should acknowledge that its procedures were flawed and consequently unfair and that the Company should offer her a once off compensatory payment of €6,000 by way of remedy for the distress caused.
The Appellant appealed the Recommendation. There was no appeal by the employer. At the hearing of the appeal the Court sought clarification on the appeal as it noted that the Rights Commissioner had found in favour of her claim and had vindicated her position. The Appellant, through her representative clarified that the appeal before the Court related solely to the quantum of compensation awarded. The Appellant was provided with the opportunity to submit a written submission to the Court on the issue of quantum only. The Company was provided with the opportunity to respond to this additional submission.
Having considered the submission made the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation made in full and final settlement of the dispute that all documentation should be removed from the Appellant’s file relating to the dispute including the final written warning. The Court does not disturb the finding regarding the acknowledgment which should be given to the Appellant that their procedures were flawed and consequently unfair and finally the Court recommends that the award of compensation should be increased to €8,000 for the distress caused.
Accordingly, the Court varies the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation in part only.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th July, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.