FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ATHLONE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX, SOLICITORS) AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS - AND - TWO WORKERS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Allegations of bullying and harassment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns claims (Ref Nos: CD/15/194, CD/15/196, CD/15/197 and CD/15/198) by the two Claimants that they were bullied and harassed in the workplace.On the 4th June 2015 the Claimant referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
Labour Court hearings took place on the 6th September and the 2nd November 2016 and the 23rd January 2017. Further supplemental submissions were received which were fully considered by the Court.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Education and Training Boards Act 2013 operates under the auspices of the Minister for Education and Skills. The Court therefore has jurisdiction to consider the claims against the Department.
2. The Institute failed to comply with the terms of settlement agreed in the High Court regarding the redeployment of the Claimants out of the Institute to other employment in the Education Sector.
3. The Complainants submit that they were entitled to be treated with dignity and respect when they were redeployed out of the Institute. However they submit this did not happen and instead they were subject to unfair and oppressive treatment in the manner in which they were dealt with on transfer. They submit that events that arose in the course of their redeployment are legitimate matters to be raised and progressed under the terms of the Grievance Procedure. They submit that their treatment infringed their rights to be treated with dignity and respect and amount to harassment within the ordinary meaning of that term.
EMPLOYERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Department submits that it is not and never was the Claimants' employer. It further submits that it cannot therefore address claims that arise out of an employment contract it did not have with the Claimants. Finally, it submits that it cannot be properly before the Court under the relevant Industrial Relations Acts. It asks the Court to determine that the complaints against it are misconceived.
2. The Institute submits that it concluded an agreement with the Claimants in settlement of High Court proceedings. It submits that it has complied with the terms of that settlement and cannot be held accountable before this Court in relation to that matter.
3. The Institute submits that the Claimants were redeployed in accordance with the terms of the High Court settlement. It submits that having been redeployed its relationship with the Claimants ended and it is not responsible for any subsequent employment-related matters they wish to raise.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of all parties in this dispute the Court finds as follows:-
1.The Claimants are not and in the relevant period never have been employed by the Department of Education and Skills. Accordingly the Court finds that the claims against the Department are misconceived, are without merit and cannot be upheld.2.The Court finds that the Claimants concluded terms of settlement with Athlone Institute of Technology on 19 January 2012 which, inter alia, state:-
- "13.The foregoing constitutes full and final settlement between the employees named at 1 above and AIT of all claims of whatsoever nature and disputes arising from the cessation of the Trades Courses and their resulting redeployment.”
It is not the function of this Court to supervise the implementation of the terms of that Agreement. That is a matter for another Court and for other proceedings.
3.The complaints before the Court arise out of the “resulting redeployment” of the Claimants and accordingly fall to be dealt with under the terms of the Agreement of 19 January 2012.
While the Court has some sympathy for the Claimants it cannot go beyond the terms of settlement agreed between the parties.
Accordingly the Court finds that the complaints are misconceived and cannot be well-founded.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
10th April 2017______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.