FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BECTON DICKINSON (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TEEU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Bullying, Harassment, Victimisation and Intimidation
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to an alleged claim by the worker that he was bullied, harassed, victimised and intimidated by his supervisor. The worker contends he was contacted while absent on sick leave, overmonitored in terms of his performance, repeatedly spoken to in an inappropriate manner and generally undermined in the course of his duties. The worker further contends that Management did not follow its own procedures in relation to carrying out an investigation into his complaints and were also responsible for excessive delays in completing the process. The worker is seeking that an independent investigation be carried out in relation to the allegations made.
Management contends that it did investigate the issues raised by the worker and did so in line with its policies and procedures. It contends that a lengthy investigation was concluded and findings were issued to all parties. Management's position is that a further investigation is unnecessary and would not assist in improving the employment relationship with the parties going forward.
On the 1st October 2013, the worker referred the matter 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 the 24th January 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 It is clear to the worker that he was treated in a way that was tantamount to bullying, harassment, victimisation and intimidation. He was over monitored, contacted while absent from work on sick leave, spoken to in an aggressive and inappropriate manner by his Supervisor and treated differently than other staff while engaged in the performance management appraisal process.
2 The worker is dissatisfied with the investigation that was carried out by Management. It was not conducted within the required timeframe or in line with Company procedures. The worker is seeking that an independent investigation be carried out into the complaint made by him against his Supervisor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management conducted its investigation in line with its policies and procedures although there was a delay in the process as a parallel investigation was taking place at corporate level on related issues.
2 Management concluded that there was no evidence of intentional incidences of bullying, harassment, victimisation and intimidation on the part of the supervisor towards the worker. Having carried out a thorough investigation and issued findings on the matter management is of the view that carrying out a further investigation is unnecessary and inapropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim for an independent investigation into an allegation of bullying. The Company carried out an investigation into the allegations made. However, the Union on behalf of the Claimant contended that the matter was not dealt with in an appropriate manner and sought an independent investigation. Management submitted that a further investigation was unwarranted and would serve no practical purpose other than prolonging the situation.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that there are issues on both sides which need to be resolved in an efficient and expeditious manner so that both parties can resume normal working relations and proceed with their respective role in a productive manner.
Therefore the Court recommends that an independent person (nominated by the Court) should in consultation and with the full co-operation of both parties carry out a review of the situation to date within a period of four weeks from the commencement of such review. The purpose of this review is to enable the independent person to make recommendations to the parties as to how matters should be resolved including a process for going forward in order to bring final resolution to the matters in dispute. For the avoidance of any doubt the Court is not recommending a new investigation into the allegations made. The Court is recommending a means to move forward and not look back.
On receipt of confirmation of acceptance of the Recommendation by both parties the Court will make the above-mentioned nomination.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th February 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.