FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CARLOW COLLEGE (REPRESENTED BY MS CLAIRE BRUTON, B.L., INSTRUCTED BY MALCOMSON LAW, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. (i) Investigation of complaints of bullying; and (ii) Changes to terms and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member currently employed as a Lecturer in Carlow College. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that his Employer has failed to properly investigate complaints of bullying and harassment raised by the Worker during the course of his employment. The Union on behalf of its member contends that the Employer has caused undue and unnecessary delay in carrying out its investigation and in issuing a final report arising from such investigation. The Union further contends that the Worker has been placed on an incorrect point on the salary scale/ rate of pay and asserts that the Employer has also failed to deal with this issue appropriately. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that the investigation was carried out fully in line with internal procedures and while it is recognised that there has been a significant delay in the issuing of an investigation report, the Employer maintains that this is a matter which is beyond their control at present.
On the 19th June, 2012 the Union on behalf of its member referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th September, 2012. A subsequent hearing took place on 15th January, 2013.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the investigation carried out by the Employer was conducted in an improper manner and that correct procedures were not followed.
2. The Union asserts that the Employer has delayed the progression of this matter and has failed to deal with queries and issues raised by the Worker in the interim period pending the issuing of a final investigation report.
3. The Union maintains that the Employer unilaterally imposed changes to the Worker's terms and conditions of employment which has resulted in the Worker being treated in an inequitable manner.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The investigation into the complaints made by the Worker was carried out strictly in line with the Employer's internal grievance procedures.
2. The Employer maintains that internal procedures were fully exhausted in conducting the investigation and furthermore the delay in issuing a final report is regrettably beyond its control.
3. The Employer contends that the Worker has previously raised his complaint regarding changes to his terms and conditions of employment before another forum and accordingly it is inappropriate for the Worker to re-submit this complaint.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court was brought by the Union on behalf of the Claimant under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and relates to two matters, (i) delay in finalising an investigation undertaken by a Senior Counsel into alleged bullying complaints he made against the College, and (ii) claim that he was incorrectly placed on the College’s salary scale/rate of pay from 2007 onwards.
Having carefully investigated this dispute over two Labour Court hearings, the Court makes the following Recommendations.
- (i)delay in finalising an investigation undertaken by a Senior Counsel into alleged bullying complaints
The Court is satisfied that the most appropriate means of bringing this long standing matter to conclusion is to await the outcome of the Senior Counsel’s investigation, which report is due to be completed by no later than 30thApril 2013. Therefore, the Court recommends that both parties should await the outcome of the report which should be immediately furnished to the parties concerned.
However, in the event that the Senior Counsel is not in a position to meet this deadline and the report is not completed by 30thApril 2013, then the Court recommends that a new investigation into the complaints made should be conducted with the assistance of the materials gathered from the earlier investigation. At the request of either or both parties the Court will nominate an independent person to conduct this investigation which must be completed as expediously as possible but in any event not later than three months from the commencement of such new investigation.
In the event of an appeal(s) by either or both parties within ten days of the furnishing of a completed report, then at the request of either or both parties the Court will nominate an independent person to conduct the appeal, which must be completed as expediously as possible but in any event not later than six weeks from the commencement of such appeal(s).
- (ii)claim that the Claimant was incorrectly placed on the College’s salary scale/rate of pay from 2007 onwards
The Court recommends that this complaint should be investigated jointly by the two named parties as agreed by both sides before the Court. This investigation must be conducted as expeditiously as possible and in any event must be completed by no later than 31thMarch 2013. The Court recommends that both sides should accept any recommendations made by the joint investigators and the College should with immediate effect implement any recommendations made regarding the applicable payscale or rate of pay for the Claimant.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th January 2013______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.