FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY RONAN DALY JERMYN SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PURDY FITZGERALD SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No. R-153684/153698-IR-15.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 6 April 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
“I recommend that as a matter of urgency the parties examine the entirety of the complaints with a view to discerning which complaints should be examined under the Grievance Procedure and which complaints are appropriate to a Dignity at Work investigation. On completion of that exercise I recommend that the parties agree the appointment of an external investigator/s to examine the complaints to be processed under the Dignity and Work procedure. The investigations should be conducted – without delay – in accordance with the provisions of the respective procedures having due regard to the principles set out in SI.146/2000. I recommend that pending the outcome of the investigations the claimant remain in her current post in Biochemistry”.
The employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 10 May 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11 October 2016.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the University against the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer, concerning the procedure to be utilised to investigate complaints submitted by the Claimant to the University in April 2014. The Adjudication Officer held that the parties should examine the entirety of the complaints made with a view to discerning which complaints should be examined under the Grievance Procedure and which are appropriate to the University’s Staff Anti-Bullying Policy.
The University appealed the Recommendation on the basis that it is largely impractical and un-implementable. It submitted that as the complaint submitted was a bullying complaint then the appropriate procedure was through the Staff Anti-Bullying Policy. It stated that if there are specific non-bullying grievances that the Claimant wishes to raise as legitimate grievances (i.e. non-bullying allegations) then she should process them through its Grievance Procedure. It asserted that implementing the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation would involve the denial of certain required protections which are underpinned by University Statutes and Codes of Practice and because of its obligations under the Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act. The University stated that it has been committed from the outset to have an external investigation carried out into the Claimant’s complaints, pursuant to its Staff Anti-Bullying Policy.
The Claimant sought to have her complaints processed through the University’s Grievance Procedure by an independent external investigator.
Having given careful consideration to the matter in dispute and having explored various options with the parties on the most appropriate manner to bring a resolution to the complaints made, the Court notes that it is the Claimant’s wish to have an investigation carried out into the complaints made rather than engage in a mediated/ facilitated process to bring the matter to a conclusion using those methods. Therefore, the Court recommends that an independent external investigator should be appointed to carry out an investigation into the Claimant’s complaints. It was agreed between the parties that the Court should nominate such a person.
It is the decision of the Court that the Investigator, having reviewed the extensive documents submitted to the Court and having consulted with the parties, should determine the Terms of Reference and the scope of the investigation. In doing so, the Investigator must have regard to the University’s policies, including its Grievance Procedures and its Staff Anti-Bullying Policy. The Investigator’s decision in these matters will be final. In carrying out the investigation, the Investigator must have regard to fair procedures and natural justice rights of both the Claimant and the alleged wrongdoers. The timeframe for the investigation will be determined by the Investigator and with the co-operation of the parties, the process should commence within four weeks of the Labour Court’s Decision. Finally, the Court decides that the Claimant should be permitted to remain in her current role in Biochemistry for the duration of the investigation process.
The Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation is hereby amended.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
18 October 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.