FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BORD GAIS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No: r-129424-ir-12/EH & R-129705-ir-13/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No: r-129424-ir-12/EH & R-129705-ir-13/EH. The issues concern a complaint of bullying by the claimant against his manager and complaints of misconduct submitted against the claimant. The worker is seeking that the written warning he received be expunged from his record and that management carry out an appropriate investigation into the complaints of bullying made by him.The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 10th July 2013 and found that the outcome of the investigation and the claim for the written warning to be expunged should be accepted by the worker. On the 30th July 2013 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd October 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union is seeking that an external investigator be appointed in relation to the allegations of bullying made against the complainants manager. This is in line with the procedures of the Company and would provide an appropriate level of enquiry into the allegations made.
2 The warning received by the complainant under the disciplinary procedure should be expunged from the workers record as there were no inducements received by the worker and the warning was wrongly issued in the first place.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management contend that a thorough investigation was carried out in line with agreed procedures and that the process is now concluded. Management contend that it is not necessary in the instant case to appoint an external investigator on the issue.
DECISION:
There were two issues dealt with in the case before the Rights Commissioner and the Court’s investigation is limited to those two issues. They relate to an investigation of a complaint of bullying by the Claimant against his manager and an investigation under the Company’s disciplinary procedure into complaints of misconduct against the Claimant.
It is not the function of the Court to form a view on the merits of complaints giving rise to those investigations nor can it substitute its views for those of the investigators appointed in either case. Rather, the role of the Court is to establish if the procedures used by the Company conformed to the generally accepted standard of fairness and objectivity that would normally be used in cases such as these.
Having considered all of the submissions and material before it the Court cannot see any procedural irregularity in the investigation of either the bullying complaints or in the disciplinary complaints. In the Court’s opinion both investigations were conducted properly and in a manner consistent with the normal and agreed practice of the Company.
It is noted that in the case of the bullying complaint the procedure does allow for the appointment of an external investigator in exceptional circumstances. However, the Court can see nothing exceptional in the facts of this case which should have compelled the Company to adopt that course of action in conducting the investigation into the Claimant’s complaints.
For all of these reasons the Court finds no basis upon which it could differ from the conclusions reached by the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th November 2013______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.