FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS LIMITED T/A G4S - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Decision R-135533-Ir-13 and R-135535-Ir-13/JW
BACKGROUND:
2.
The issue before the Court concerns an appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. R-135533-Ir-13 and R-135535-Ir-13/JW by the Union on behalf of its member. The Company is a licensed provider of security and related services to customers nationwide and is involved in the provision of static guarding, mobile patrol, electronic security, monitoring and cleaning services around the country. The Worker is employed as a security officer since 2009 and had been working on the Amazon site when he raised a grievance via email with his Union. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 18th July, 2014 the Rights Commissioner made the following Recommendation:
"I recommend that the total sum of €3,822.84 be paid to the claimant in compensation for breaches of the industrial Relations Acts, 1969-1990."
On the 15th August, 2014 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd October, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1The Worker does not believe that the award from the Rights Commissioner was proportionate to the seriousness of the issues or impact they have had on him.
2 The Worker feels that the manner in which he was suspended from his employment was unfair and unreasonable.
3 The Worker has suffered a great deal of stress due to this.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1The Company have acted reasonably and in line with the Workers terms and conditions of employment at all times.
2 The Worker remains unsatisfied with the outcome of this procedure, however, the Company have attempted to act reasonably at all times throughout the process.
3 The Company utterly refutes the allegation that the Worker has been victimised, bullied or harassed by the Company and would in fact argue that every effort has been made to address the Workers issues.
DECISION:
There were three issues referred to the Rights Commissioner, namely,
1. A claim that the Claimant was wrongly suspended for work in October 20122. A claim that complaints of bullying made by the Claimant were not properly investigated,
3. That the Claimant is owed arrears of pay for the period from 2009 to 2013.
The Rights Commissioner found that each of the claims was well founded. He recommended that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €1,000 in respect of each of the matters referred to at 1 and 2 above and that an amount be paid in respect of arrears of pay.
The Union appealed against the recommendation claiming that the compensation recommended by the Rights Commissioner is inadequate and does not properly reflect the gravity of the wrong suffered by the Claimant. The employer did not appeal the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation.
At the hearing the Court was told that the dispute concerning arrears of pay is being dealt with locally and does not now form part of the appeal.
Having taken all of the circumstances of this case into account the Court is satisfied that the manner in which the Claimant was suspended from his employment was particularly unfair and unreasonable. The Court accepts that the compensation recommended in respect of this matter does not adequately reflect the gravity of what occurred. In the Court’s opinion an award of €5,000 is more appropriate in respect of this matter. It is the decision of the Court that the employer should pay the Claimant compensation in that amount for the manner of his suspension and the circumstances in which it occurred.
The Court is satisfied that the level of compensation awarded by the Rights Commissioner in respect of the delay in investigating his bullying complaints is adequate and should not be interfered with.
It is noted that the dispute relating to claimed arrears of wages due to the Claimant is being resolved locally and it is unnecessary for the Court to address that matter.
The Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is varied in accordance with the terms of this decision.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CO'R______________________
3 November, 2014Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.