FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). ADJ-00011299 CA-00015075-001
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation by Tipperary County Council. On the 29 July 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
“I recommend the Respondent write to the Complainant in this instant case confirming that the matter is now closed and that no adverse finding was made against him. I further recommend that in compensation for the inordinate delays in the process, the Respondent offer the Complainant the sum of €9,000 compensation".The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 29 August 2019 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26 November 2019.
DECISION:
Background to the Dispute
This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal on behalf of Tipperary County Council (‘the Council’) from a recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00011299, dated 29 July 2019) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Adjudication Officer found in the Worker’s favour and recommended the Council pay him compensation of €9,000.00. The Notice of Appeal was received on 29 August 2019. The Court heard the appeal in Thurles on 26 November 2019.
The Worker was the subject of a complaint of bullying and harassment in July 2017. The complaint was investigated by the Council. However, the Council did not produce its draft final report in relation to the matter until 25 January 2019. The final report was released on 15 February 2019. It exonerated the Worker and concluded that the complaint against him was not well-founded.
The within dispute concerns the protracted duration of the investigation process. The Union submits that the Council, having taken almost two years to conclude the investigation, failed to comply with the timelines provided for in its own policy. It further submits that the protracted nature of the process has caused stress and anxiety to the Worker. The Council accepts that a number of delays had occurred in the course of the investigation but that many of them were caused by factors outside of its control, including: the long-term absence of the Worker on certified sick leave, the illness of the investigator and data access request made by the author of the original bullying and harassment complaint. The Council appeals specifically against the quantum of the compensation recommended by the Adjudication Officer.
Decision
The Court has considered in some detail the comprehensive written and oral submissions of the Parties. It finds that although certain factors beyond either Party’s control contributed to the delayed completion of the investigation, both of the Parties must also take some responsibility for the delays. Accordingly, the Court fixes the appropriate compensation payable to the Worker at €3,500.00.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CC______________________
6 January 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.