FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WEXFORD COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Disciplinary Action/Procedures
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose due to the submission of statements from nine employees to the Employer related to an alleged incident of bullying that took place on the 24th September 2018. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th February 2019, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th June, 2019.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written submissions of the parties.
The effective conduct of industrial relations requires the exercise of pragmatism and, to a degree, the exercise of common sense. In the within matter certain complaints have been raised some months ago but those complaints, contrary to the policy in place in the Council, remain un-investigated. The lack of any investigation is a product of the parties’ disagreement as regards the appointment of an investigator.
The Court notes that the policy covering the appointment of an investigator is in place since 2006. It is the Court’s view that any dissatisfaction, if such there be, with any element of that policy should be the subject of separate engagement rather than a feature of the process of dealing with specific complaints.
The Court notes that the Workplace Commission had previously, at conciliation, proposed that it would nominate an individual or individuals to conduct the investigation required by the policy of the Council.
The Court recommends, without prejudice to the positions of the parties or the operation of the policy of the Council, that the proposal of the Commission should be accepted and that, in the interest of the resolution of the underlying matter, the Commission should be asked to nominate an investigator. Both parties should accept that this mechanism is outside the terms of the policy of the Council as written. This Recommendation should not be viewed as a precedent and the existing policy should continue to operate as written.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
TH______________________
12 June 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.