FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOUTH TIPPERARY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Company in breach of its own grievance/dignity at work procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by a Worker that the Employer neglected its duty of care towards her when the Board of Management (the BOM) failed to observe its own policies set out under their Grievance Procedures in respect of a complaint made by her.
The Employer's position is that the BOM did investigate the case and interviewed the individuals involved including compiling an account of these interviews and presenting the accounts to the parties involved.
On the 26thOctober 2011, the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4thOctober 2012.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The BOM neglected in its duty of care towards the Worker when it did not act on the continuing bad behaviour outlined by her.
2. The BOM showed bias towards her complaint and allowed the other party involved influence the progression of the investigation.
3. The BOM still have a lack of understanding of the issue.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The person against whom the complaint was made is no longer with the Employer.
2. The Worker was offered a lengthy written apology along with monetary compensation.
3. The BOM offered to re-investigate the case using an independent grievance panel but this was declined by the Worker
RECOMMENDATION:
The the Court notes that the Company, in this case, acknowledged that there were shortcomings in the manner in which it dealt with this matter and offered to compensate the worker for those shortcomings. The worker did not accept the Company’s offer and appealed the matter to this Court.
Having considered the extensive submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends that the Company, in full and final settlement of all claims in respect of this matter, increase the offer of compensation to €5,000. The Court further recommends that the Company pay the compensation in two moieties of €2,500 each in December 2012 and December 2013, respectively.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
16th October 2012Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.