FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DEBENHAMS RETAIL IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-124432-ir-12/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant works as a Stock Movement Assistant at the Company's Newbridge Store. The Claimant is claiming that the Respondent did not apply their Bully ing and Sexual Harassment policy in regard to an incident that took place at a social gathering in a nightclub on 6th August, 2011. The Company state that as the incident took place at 2.30 am in a nightclub it was outside of the remit of the Company's Bullying and Harassment policy.
The issue involves a claim by A Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 12th December, 2012, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"I have considered the submissions of both parties. In considering these, I do not find the Respondent liable for the incidents that culminated at a social event on 6 August 2011. I am satisfied that they investigated the matter and at all times were fair in so far as their duty of care in the workplace obliged them to be to their employees.
The recommendation of the Respondent's investigation should be implemented in full to assist the restoration of working relationship between the parties.
I do not find the Claimant's claim for compensation well found".
On the 10th January, 2013 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 18th April, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Elements of the Company's procedures in dealing with the complaint were unsatisfactory.
2. The Company should issue a disciplinary sanction against the employee at the heart of this dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company recommended that the parties engage in mediation in order to work through the dispute and re-establish a positive working relationship.
2. The question of whether or not disciplinary action should be taken against an employee is a matter solely for Management and not at the behest of a Union.
DECISION:
The Court notes that this dispute related to an alleged assault and disorderly conduct by one employee of the Company against another which occurred outside of the work environment. The Court cannot see how the Company could be fixed with liability for what occurred. Neither does the Court consider that the subject matter of that dispute is capable of constituting a trade dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 to 2012.
The Company has an acknowledged interest in seeking to restore normal working relations between the parties involved in the altercation giving rise to the dispute. It has sought to do so by mediation. In the Court's opinion that is an appropriate and responsible approach but does not imply that the Company became a party to the dispute in so doing.
The Rights Commissioner proposed that the Union accept that approach and the Court affirms that Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th May, 2013______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.