FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WORKPLACE OPTIONS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MC INNES DUNNE, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY CONAL DEVINE & ASSOCIATES LTD) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Alleged bullying complaint
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim for an independent external investigation into an allegation of bullying. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 1st April, 2015, 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 15th May, 2015.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker made an allegation of alleged inappropriate behaviour by a colleague.
2. The Company failed to investigate this complaint in a fair and transparent manner.
3.The Worker sought an independent external investigator appointed to investigate his complaint.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes that the referral of this matter to the Court is premature and unnecessary.
2. The Worker is frustrating the Company's investigation by declining to participate in it.
3. The Company believes that the Worker should engage fully with the investigation as soon as he is medically able to do so.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim for an external independent investigation into an allegation of bullying. The Company carried out an informal investigation into the allegations made and, following the submission of a formal complaint on 24thNovember 2014, it initiated an investigation conducted by senior management based in the United States which has not been completed at this stage. The Claimant was not satisfied with this process and sought an external investigation. Furthermore, the Claimant indicated to the Court that at this stage a resolution of the interpersonal difficulties he was encountering in his workplace could be achieved through a mediated/facilitated process.
Management submitted that the current investigation conducted by personnel who are based in the United States was conducted in accordance with its procedures and should be allowed to complete its work. However, Management also informed the Court that it was open to bringing a resolution to the issues through a mediated/facilitated process.
Having carefully considered the positions of both sides the Court is of the view that the option to have a mediated/facilitated process to bring final resolution to the issues is the most appropriate manner to resume normal working relationships so that the Claimant can carry out his duties in an effective and productive manner. Furthermore, the Court is of the view that for this process to be effective it must be for the purposes of bringing a full and final resolution to all matters in dispute and this involves closing the current investigation pending the outcome of the mediated/facilitated process.
Therefore the Court recommends that an independent person (nominated by the Court) should in consultation and with the full co-operation of both parties conduct a facilitation process within a period of four weeks to facilitate a restoration of a positive working relationship between the Claimant and all his colleagues including Management, with the aim of enabling an early return to work for the Claimant, in resolution and in full and final settlement of all matters between the parties. For the avoidance of any doubt the Court is not recommending that any further investigation take place. 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
2nd June, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.