FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : INISHOWEN TOURISM SOCIETY LTD (REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL D WHITE & CO SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MC CLOUGHAN GUNN & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-142668-ir-14/SR.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the investigation of the Worker's bullying and harassment complaint. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 18th July, 2014 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I recommend that the Employer arrange and the Claimant facilitate an independent investigation of the Claimant's grievance ... I accept that there are severe financial constraints on the Employer [and] I do not accept that financial compensation is appropriate in this case."
On the 22nd August, 2014 the Worker 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 the 24th September, 2014. The Employer did not attend this Hearing.
3. 1. The Worker made a bullying and harassment complaint to the Employer.
2. The Employer's failure to investigate this complaint caused the Worker additional stress and anxiety.
3.The Worker should be compensated financially.
DECISION:
The appeal before the Court by the Claimant concerns a dispute with her Employer in relation to an investigation of a bullying and harassment complaint made by her. The Rights Commissioner recommended that an independent investigation of the Claimant’s grievance should be carried out. He did not recommend in favour of the Claimant’s claim for compensation. The Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Employer did not attend before the Court for reasons which were explained to the Court.
The Court notes that having made the complaint two of the Employer’s Staff Liaison Officers met with the Claimant and it was agreed that an investigation into the complaints would be carried out. When the investigator was appointed to carry out the investigation, difficulties arose over the appointment of a suitable person to conduct the investigation. Following which the Employer appointed a Mediator. On conclusion of that process, the Mediator issued a report and made recommendation on resolving the difficulties which arose between the Claimant and the Employer.
Following which a Return to Work meeting took place between the Claimant and her Employer at which a proposal was agreed between the parties that included the Claimant resigning from her employment in return for a severance payment in full and final settlement of her claim. The Claimant was willing to accept this proposal, however it was not sanctioned by the Board of Management.
The Court has considered the written and oral submission of the Claimant, and has taken account of the written correspondence exchanged between the parties during this process. Having carefully deliberated over this information, the Court is of the view that the working relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down. In those circumstances the Court is of the view that the proposal agreed at the Return to Work meeting should be reconsidered by the Board of Management and the dispute should be resolved on that basis. Therefore the Court recommends that both parties should re-enter discussions on that basis with a view to bringing conclusion to this dispute.
Accordingly, the Court does not uphold the Claimant’s appeal.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th October, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.