Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94135 Case Number: AD9448 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - IBOA;REPRESENTED IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T.471/93.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the arguments made by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court accepts that the employee was negligent in the manner in
which she dealt with this client. In particular, the employer
could not be expected to condone the employee's action in
retaining a cheque paid by the client in respect of a service
which was not in fact provided.
The Court accepts that it is necessary above all for a financial
institution to insist upon the highest standards of probity and
responsibility being maintained by its employees in all dealings,
in particular those relating to the accounts of clients.
However, whilst accepting that the negligence of the employee may
have been embarrassing to the Company, the Court is not satisfied
that the circumstances were of such a magnitude as to be
prejudicial to the interests of the Company.
While recognising that the employer was obliged to take a most
serious view of the employee's conduct, the Court is satisfied, in
all the circumstances of the case, that the demotion of the
employee should not extend for a period longer than one year and
that she should be restored to her former grading and level of
remuneration with effect from 23rd September, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is amended accordingly.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94135 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4894
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BANK OF IRELAND COMMERCIAL FINANCE
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T.
471/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company as a Legal
Executive. Her work involved the recovery of overdue debts
and often involved travel, as a witness in Court. It is
Company policy to reimburse staff members for out-of-pocket
expenses.
2. In 1993, a client enquired of the Company as to why he had
been asked to supply personal cheques to the worker and why he
had received no account of expenses incurred. The Company
alleges that, contrary to normal practice, the worker had
required the client to provide three cheques of #100 each,
made out to her personally, to cover expenses for three Court
hearings, one of which did not take place.
3. Following a number of discussion, the worker was demoted
from her Officer position grade E, with a salary of #17,067
per year to a Clerical position grade C, with a salary of
#12,924 per year. The worker appealed the decision and the
appeal was heard by the Managing Director of the Company on
20th September, 1993. The worker was represented by the
Association at the hearing. The result of the hearing was
that the demotion to grade 'C' remained and the salary was
modified to #15,000 per annum.
4. The Association appealed the decision to the Rights
Commissioner's service on 29th October, 1993 and a hearing
took place on 20th December, 1993. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the penalty imposed is revoked and that the
Claimant is fully restored to her former grading and
remuneration without loss.
I further recommend that the Claimant receives a first stage
written warning which should be placed on her record until
24/9/94 whereupon, if she has a clear record in the interim,
it should be scrubbed from her employment record."
6. The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Labour
Court on 5th March, 1994 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
29th April, 1994 (the earliest date available to the parties).
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. No disciplinary measures were warranted by the worker's
actions. She was specifically asked to take up the post of
Legal Executive by a former manager of the Company and had
excellent references. The worker had a backlog of work which
she cleared up, often working her lunch-hours. In various
other jobs assigned to her (details supplied to the Court) the
worker always fulfilled her duties.
2. The Company claims that the amount of money, three
cheques of #100 each, was in excess of what the worker was
entitled to. During the periods concerned, October, 1989,
February, 1991 and March, 1992 the worker was exceptionally
busy. She was told by her superior at the time to make sure
she was not out of pocket. The #300 was not sufficient to
cover her expenses. This was the reason the third cheque was
cashed.
3. The worker has admitted that she should have informed
the client regarding the cashing of the third cheque. Due to
pressure of work she neglected to do so but this was her only
fault. The worker refutes the allegation that she charged the
client for services not performed. She was, in fact, doing the
client a favour in what was a time consuming case.
4. Since 1990, the worker has felt victimised and
discriminated against in the Company. This includes not being
allowed to attend a training course she was due to attend and
being downgraded without her knowledge. The worker returned
to work (after ten weeks sick leave) in February, 1993 to find
that the core element of her work had been taken from her in
her absence. No adequate explanation was given. This was
very stressful for the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was guilty of a serious breach of Company
regulations by retaining payment from a client for services
not rendered, i.e., retaining payment for a Court hearing on
3/3/92 which did not take place. The seriousness of the
action could have resulted in dismissal.
2. There is a clear Company policy for reimbursing staff
for travel expenses. There is no precedent for staff members
being paid directly by a client. Clients are always billed by
the Company. The Company rejects the worker's suggestion that
the previous General Manager would have authorised or condoned
such action.
3. Because of the seriousness of the offence, and the fact
that her conduct was prejudicial to the interests of the
Company, the disciplinary action had to be severe. The
worker's current salary is #2,000 above the maximum point for
her new grade.
DECISION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the arguments made by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court accepts that the employee was negligent in the manner in
which she dealt with this client. In particular, the employer
could not be expected to condone the employee's action in
retaining a cheque paid by the client in respect of a service
which was not in fact provided.
The Court accepts that it is necessary above all for a financial
institution to insist upon the highest standards of probity and
responsibility being maintained by its employees in all dealings,
in particular those relating to the accounts of clients.
However, whilst accepting that the negligence of the employee may
have been embarrassing to the Company, the Court is not satisfied
that the circumstances were of such a magnitude as to be
prejudicial to the interests of the Company.
While recognising that the employer was obliged to take a most
serious view of the employee's conduct, the Court is satisfied, in
all the circumstances of the case, that the demotion of the
employee should not extend for a period longer than one year and
that she should be restored to her former grading and level of
remuneration with effect from 23rd September, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is amended accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
27th June, 1994 -------------
C. O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman