FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BORD GÁIS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Decisions r-136894,136895-ir-13/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is a full time permanent Worker with Bord Gáis for the past thirty one years. The Claimant brought a claim under the Bord's Bullying and Harassment Policy Procedures in 2012 and later a claim regarding pay parity with Reinstatement Supervisors who do work of a similar nature. Management, after investigations can find no merit in the claims but agreed to a settlement figure in order to bring closure to the matter of parity.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 1st April 2014, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:_
"I have considered the submissions of both parties. In regard to the bullying complaint, I accept that a thorough investigation took place under the agreed procedures between the parties. I do not see any reason why the Claimant should have more favourable treatment than any of his fellow employees.
I have examined the evidence submitted on behalf of the Claimant for regrading to band 7. Setting aside the fact that he accepted €6,000 infull and final settlementin regard to this matter, I have concluded that his level of actual responsibility is not at the same level as the other supervisors on an ongoing basis.
In conclusion, the Claimant has engaged the use of a consultant, the Labour Court and now the Rights Commission Service. I am now putting it on the record after two Hearings, I do not find his claims well founded and they fail". (Typos are corrected.)
On the 16th April, 2014 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 13th June 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Bullying and Harassment Policy is flawed. Best practice in similar employments would have an external investigator utilised and draw on the assistance of the advisory service of the LRC if necessary.
2. The Company never advertised the positions of Reinstatement Supervisors for open competition and by so doing have denied the Claimant of a chance of promotion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During February 2012 the Claimant made a complaint of Bullying and Harassment against Managers in another Department. Two Investigators were appointed to make findings of fact. A total of five interviews were conducted over a five week period, a report was prepared which did not uphold the Claimant's complaint.
2. Regarding the pay parity / re-grading claim the Comparators suggested by the Worker are Construction Supervisors with competence in construction techniques.. Following a review using the Hay model the Worker's claim was unsuccessful. In order to bring finality to the issue an ex-gratia payment of €6,000 was made in full and final settlement, the Worker accepted this proposal.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Worker of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against his claims. The Claimant had referred two claims to the Rights Commissioner: - (i) appeal of an internal bullying investigation and (ii) claim for pay parity.
- (i)appeal of an internal bullying investigation
The Company denied this allegation and stated that the agreed Company “Bullying and Harassment Policy” states:-
- “Generally the investigation will be conducted through the structure of the department in question. Occasionally it may be appropriate for a person from another department or nominated third party to conduct the investigation.”
In this case two managers from a different departments to the Claimant, one from Human Resources and the second from the HSQE department, carried out the investigation. The Claimant referred to the reference in the investigator’s report where it held that part of his work involved managing snags, this was also part of the work carried out by the Supervisors. Therefore the investigators stated that“Clearly a duplication of roles is the case.”
Having considered all aspects of the claim the Court is satisfied that there was no breach of the agreed bulling investigation procedures and having examined the details of the procedures adopted by the investigators the Court is satisfied that it was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and accordingly does not uphold the Claimant’s appeal.
- (ii)claim for pay parity
Notwithstanding this finalisation of the matter, the Company stated that the role of the Claimant is not comparable to that of the Supervisors, the latter haveinter aliadirect supervision of contractor crews and it rejected his claim.
Having considered all aspects of this claim, the Court is cognisant of the settlement reached in 2008 and is not satisfied that cogent arguments have been submitted to uphold his claim for pay parity with a construction Supervisor, Band 7.
Therefore the Court does not uphold the Claimant's appeal of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Claimant’s appeal is dismissed.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th July, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.