FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DEBENHAMS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. An appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Decision no: r-151821-Ir-14/POB.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim for compensation for the Claimant’s loss of earnings. The Claimant submitted a complaint against a colleague in December 2013 and her colleague submitted a complaint against the Claimant the following week.
- The Union said the Claimant was absent from work for fifteen months as a result of the Company’s error and delay in dealing with the simultaneous grievances and bringing them to a conclusion.
The Employer said it acted in a fair, reasonable and timely manner to resolve the issue.
- This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 6th August 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- Having considered both submissions I am of the view that it is not possible to identify how the process could have operated quicker than it did with all complexities involved in the process. No one party seems to me to be responsible for the delay. At times the claimant was involved in the delay, the other grievance person was also involved, getting suitable dates from an external party to suit all sides etc.
It seems that it would be an inappropriate to lay blame for the slow process on the company solely. All parties had to have their rights and representation protected in the process. All parties had the right to a fair and procedurally correct process due to the complexity of the circumstances involved. I am glad to note the claimant is now fit to return to work but I see no merit in proposing any sanction against the company for the delay as I can’t see in the details any circumstance where they could have acted differently.
- Having considered both submissions I am of the view that it is not possible to identify how the process could have operated quicker than it did with all complexities involved in the process. No one party seems to me to be responsible for the delay. At times the claimant was involved in the delay, the other grievance person was also involved, getting suitable dates from an external party to suit all sides etc.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioner’s to the Labour Court on the 7th September 2015 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd March 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant submitted a formal grievance on 5th December 2013 which was investigated by the Company and Mediation was recommended.
2. The mediation did not take place as a direct result of the Company’s failure to deal with a simultaneous complaint from the other staff member.
3. The Claimant has suffered both financially and mentally as a result. The Claimant is seeking compensation for her loss resulting from the Company’s actions.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company have used all internal and external instruments to them to resolve the issue between the parties and return the Claimant to work.
2. The Company stated in all correspondence concerning mediation that it was a voluntary process and therefore it could not take place if one of the parties refused; unfortunately, this was the case in this instance.
3. The Company attempted to refer the Claimant through the Occupational Health route initially in April 2014 but the Claimant chose not to engage. This process has proven worthwhile in the past in assisting employees in their return to work.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by a worker (the Claimant) of a Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner made under the Industrial Relations Acts 1946-2015. The Claimant had contended that her employer (the Respondent) had caused her a financial loss and other difficulties by failing to efficiently complete various internal procedures arising from grievances she and another staff member had submitted to the Respondent.
The Rights Commissioner in his recommendation found that it was not possible to identify how the process could have operated quicker than it did with all the complexities involved in the process and saw no merit in proposing any sanction against the Respondent.
Recommendation
The Court has carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. The matters at the centre of this case were clearly difficult for the Claimant over a considerable period of time. Similarly the Court must acknowledge the challenge presented to the Respondent in addressing the complex and interlinked issues raised as grievances by two employees at effectively the same time.
The Court acknowledges the extensive efforts of the employer to deal appropriately with the grievances of two employees where the matters raised revolved around both employees’ interactions with each other and the alleged difficulties experienced by both. The Court must acknowledge that the management of the situation was, of necessity, complex and that the challenge of ensuring fairness of procedure was considerable and presented incidences of delay which would not be desirable in an ideal situation. This situation was not however ideal.
The Court ascribes no fault to the employer for the sequence of events which unfolded and the time involved in achieving final resolution. The Court however must also acknowledge the impact on the Claimant of the fact that the matters under consideration continued without resolution for over a year. That impact included an element of financial loss, albeit the Respondent did take steps in the period to offer the Claimant an opportunity to mitigate the loss she was suffering.
The Court, in acknowledgement that it is ultimately for the employer to be responsible for securing efficient resolution of grievances, recommends without prejudice to the Respondent’s own conduct throughout in this particular matter, that the Respondent should make a payment of €2,500 to the Claimant as an acknowledgement of the difficulty these experiences have caused to her.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
16th March, 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.