FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MR KEVIN BLAKE T/A SPAR CASTLEKNOCK - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY JONES SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Bullying and Harassment
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the employer and worker in relation to allegations of bullying and harassment. The worker contends that he was bullied and harassed by his employer after he joined a Trade Union. He claims that his employer reduced his hours of work as a result and that this action constituted bullying and harassment. The employer refutes the allegation of bullying and contends that he had no idea the worker was a Trade Union member. He contends the reduction in hours was as a result of a downturn in business.
On the 1st August 2013, the worker submitted his complaint 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 11th October 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:3The worker was bullied by his employer because he joined a trade union and became the shop steward in the workplace. The employer reduced his hours of work as direct result of his trade union activities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 The employer was not aware of the worker's involvement with the Trade Union nor his position as the workplace shop steward. The reduction in his hours of work were simply necessary on the basis of a downturn in business.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and concerns a claim of bullying and harassment by the Claimant’s employer. Mr. James Jones Solicitor, Jones Solicitors on behalf of the Claimant alleged that this action by the employer occurred after he joined a trade union in April 2011 and was manifested by a reduction in his working hours. Mr. Jones submitted details of hours worked from 2009 until the present day along with copies of P60 for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
The employer denied the allegation made, he said that he was unaware which of his employees were members of a trade union and that he only became aware that the Claimant was a shop steward at the hearing itself. He stated that the P60 data indicated a 3% variation in pay for the period 2011, 2012 and 2013. This he submitted was accounted for by the drop off in trade which occurred in this period and not by a campaign against the Claimant’s alleged membership of a trade union.
Having examined the details submitted by both parties it is evident to the Court that while there was some decline in working hours from the period 2009 to 2013, no submission has been made to substantiate the claim that this occurred in April 2011 and that it was in any way connected to the Claimant’s membership of a trade union at that time.
Therefore the Court does not uphold the Claimant’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th November 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.