FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOARD OF MANAGEMENT SCOIL AN LINBH IOSA - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Bullying and Harassment
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim of bullying by a Worker. The Claimant made a formal complaint of bullying to the school in March, 2010. The Board of Management (BOM) investigated the complaint and found it was not a case of bullying. In June, 2010 IMPACT wrote to the BOM on behalf of the Claimant who was not happy with the result and asked for further talks on the issue.
- In February, 2011 the Claimant and IMPACT wrote to the BOM outlining further examples of behaviour towards her which she felt were unacceptable. It was agreed in April, 2011 that mediation would take place in an attempt to resolve matters. Mediation was unsuccessful and in May , 2011 the BOM wrote to IMPACT saying an investigation would take place under the CPSMA handbook.
In August, 2011 the BOM hired an external provider to carry out the investigation. IMPACT agreed to the use of the external provider but the other Worker involved in the investigation did not.
In January, 2012 a new BOM was convened and IMPACT wrote to them seeking an update on the investigation. In March, 2012 the BOM informed the Claimant that it was not possible for it to investigate matters already investigated by its predecessor
3. 1.The Employer has prevaricated at every level throughout, has been unsure and uncertain of what procedure to adopt.
2. The Employers behaviour was not in keeping with any fair procedure, duty of care to the Worker or in line with its own procedures
3. The BOM did not give the Worker the written statements to view or comment on.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The complaints against the other Worker are based around a perceived lack of respectful engagement
2. The BOM view is that the behaviour did not amount to bullying.
3. There was a breakdown of a personal working relationship that could have been dealt with in a more constructive fashion by all parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this dispute.
The Court has considered the procedures the Employer followed in the investigation of the complaint made by the worker in this case and is not convinced that they meet the criteria set down in “S.I. No. 17 of 2002 Industrial Relations Act 1990 Code of Practice detailing Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace (Declaration) Order 2002” The Court also finds that the Board of Management is not best placed to conduct an impartial and independent investigation into the complaint at this time.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Board of Management appoint an agreed competent independent person, preferably with agreed terms of reference, to conduct a new investigation into all of the complaints made by the worker in this case.
The outcome of the investigation, together with any recommendations that may emerge, should be provided to all parties to the complaint for their comments and observations. Thereafter the Board of Management should decide on a course of action and proceed to give effect to it in the context of the collective and contractual agreements in place between the parties.
The Court notes the Union’s commitment to co-operate fully with such an independent investigation and to accept its findings.
The Court recommends that this process be completed before the 30thNovember 2012.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
8th October 2012Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.