FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN EMPLOYER (REPRESENTED BY CULLEN & CO. SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Decision r-140377-ir-13/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant has been employed as a Job Club Leader since 2002. During August 2013 an issue arose amongst the small number of staff which included claims, counter claims and alleged bullying resulting in a breakdown in relationships between colleagues. Management conducted an investigation and imposed a sanction on the Claimant which she considers to be unfair. That sanction is at the heart of this appeal.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 4th April 2014, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"..the Respondent was right to have serious concern in regard to the behaviour and attitude of the claimant in what is a close and small working environment, the sanction of a final written warning imposed for three years is disproportionate in regard to the time scale. I accept that the investigation was carried out in a fair manner as the Respondent was conscious of the small number of staff involved in the organisation. it was not however, to the Claimant's liking but it is management's right to manage.
I recommend that the final written warning remain in place but only for a 12 month period from the date of the letter issued."
On the 8th May, 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 3rd October, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As a result of the Claimant lodging allegations of bullying, she was subjected to counter complaints being made against her.
2. Management's investigation was flawed as it did not afford her her right to natural justice.
3. The sanction imposed was disproportionate and unreasonable
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The behaviour of the Claimant was inappropriate and similar to events that took place in 2011 in which she was involved.
2.The investigation was fair and the sanction imposed was reasonable in the circumstances.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court, without prejudice to the merits of the claims and counter claims that arose in this case, finds that while management went to considerable lengths to deal with these matters in a fair and reasonable way the procedures it employed fell short of best practice and as a consequence the decision to discipline the Claimant is unsafe and must be set aside.
In light of the length of time that has elapsed since these matters first arose, the Court finds no purpose will be served by recommencing a fresh investigation at this time.
Instead, the Court takes the view that the Claimant and the Partnership would be best served by engaging the services of a suitably qualified independent person to try to restore good working relationships between all staff members.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
21st October, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.