FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : J KILBRIDE & SONS LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00011373.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Claimant's appeal of anAdjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00011373. The dispute relates specifically to the Claimant's claim that he was treated in an inequitable manner by his Employer and furthermore that the Employer failed to adequately address concerns raised by the Claimant during his course of employment. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation.On the 17th April, 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued her recommendation as follows:
"I recommend amendments and implementation of the agreed internal workplace procedures in the manner described and for the reasons stated above.
I recommend payment of one week's salary to the complainant.
I recommend that the complainant is offered the services of an employee assistance provider".
On the 17th May, 2018 the Claimant appealed the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th June, 2018. The following is the Decision of the Court:
DECISION:
This matter comes before the Court as an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation. The Trade Union, at the hearing of the Court, clarified that no aspect of the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation was under appeal other than the quantum of compensation awarded by her.
The Adjudication Officer made an award to the Appellant and clarified that the award was being made
‘owing to their lack of direction in naming or suggesting third parties to investigate the complaints’.
Insofar as the Trade Union has confirmed that only the matter of quantum remains at issue in the within appeal the Court is clear that the basis for the award made by the Adjudication Officer is accepted by the Appellant.
The Adjudication Officer, in her Recommendation, recommended amendments to the Respondent’s internal procedures in relation to Bullying and Harassment and to procedures dealing with the processing of Grievances. The Respondent submitted that the Recommendation in those respects has been implemented in its entirety and that assertion was not contested by the Appellant at the hearing of the Court.
The Court notes that, notwithstanding the amendment of the above mentioned procedures following the issue of the decision of the Adjudication Officer, no grievance or complaint of bullying or harassment has been made utilising those procedures.
The Court accepts that inadequacies in the Respondent’s procedures inhibited the processing of a grievance by the Appellant at local level prior to the making of a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. Any issue which the Appellant may have had in his workplace was never the subject of engagement between the parties or the subject of any form of investigation. The Court notes that the Appellant has at all times been represented by his Trade Union.
Taking all matters into account and addressing only the matter which is in dispute between the parties, the Court recommends that the Respondent should make a payment to the Appellant for the reason set out by the Adjudication Officer. That payment should be of an amount equivalent to four week’s salary.
The Adjudication Officer’s decision is varied accordingly.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
17th July 2018______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.