FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WALKINSTOWN ASSOCIATION FOR PEOPLE WITH AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY T/A WALK (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY KOD LYONS SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-132998-IR-13.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Employer's appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-132998-IR-13. The dispute relates specifically to the Employer's claim that it acted fairly and reasonably and its actions were justified throughout the course of an internal investigation which occurred following an alleged workplace incident. The Employer maintains that the sanctions imposed on the Worker were warranted in all the circumstances of the case. The Worker rejects the Employer's claim arguing that she was treated in an inequitable manner as a result of the Employer's unfair procedures and undue delay in carrying out the investigation. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 6th December 2013, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that in all the circumstances presented to me here that the written warning of the 4th of January 2013 be expunged and that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €3000 (say three thousand euro) in full and final settlement of all matters arising from this complaint".
On the 20th December 2013, the Employer 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 16th April, 2014.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker suffered a significant financial loss as a result of the Employer's delay in carrying out its investigation.
2. The Employer's internal procedures are flawed and the investigation was not carried out in an appropriate manner.
3. The sanctions imposed on the Worker were excessive and harsh in nature.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer adhered to fair procedures at all times.
2. The Worker was treated fairly at all times.
3. The Worker was disciplined in line with the Employer's internal grievance and disciplinary procedures.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court, noting that it has now expired, finds that the written warning Management issued to the Claimant was justified in all the circumstances of this case.
The Court further finds that the Claimant was nevertheless subjected to an inordinate delay in the processing of this matter at considerable personal financial loss. Accordingly the Court affirms the Rights Commissioner’s financial award in this case.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
28th April 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.