FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PARC AVIATION LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY O'MARA GERAGHTY MCCOURT, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Removal of final written warning.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant has been employed for 21 years with the Parc Group in the position of Director of Operations, Flight Crew, in Parc Aviation. The Claimant placed an e-mail dated 6th August 1999 announcing the acquisition by Parc of an IT Company. The acquisition was not successful. The Claimant wrote a 'humorous' remark on the e-mail before putting it on the notice board in the tea room. The e-mail was removed by a member of staff and brought to the attention of a senior executive. Disciplinary procedures took place after which the Claimant received a "Final Written Warning" from his employer that would remain on his record for a duration of 2 years. The Claimant appealed the decision. Following the appeal, the final written warning remains but amended by half to 1 year.
The Claimant's Solicitors referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 6th February, 2006 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 as the Company refused to attend the Labour Relations Commission. The Claimantdoes not believe that he was treated fairly and reasonably in the circumstances and that the Company's application of their Disciplinary Procedure was flawed. He is seeking the removal of the final written warning. The Claimant agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st April, 2006.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Claimant contends that the employer's investigation was procedurally and substantively flawed and also that the sanction imposed was grossly disproportionate to his actions.
2. The Claimant stated that he often posted humorous notes and e-mail of a similar nature on the notice board. However, the disciplinary process was never invoked either formally or informally on any of these occasions
3. The Claimant contends that he had no way of knowing that posting the humorous note would lead toany disciplinary action much less to invoke Stage 3 of the disciplinary procedure.
4. The matter should have been dealt with on an informal basis, which would have alerted the Claimant to the Company's attitude towards the posting of humorous notices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 In order to attempt to gain a rational understanding and explanation of this act, formal disciplinary procedures were properly applied.
2. The application was conducted in a professional and open manner
- The nature of the issue giving rise to the application was clearly explained at each of the prescribed stages;
- All notes and documentation were provided;
- The Claimant was given adequate opportunity to respond; and
- The Claimant was appropriately facilitated in being accompanied
- by a colleague at both the initial disciplinary meeting and the subsequent appeal.
4. When all aspects of this matter are taken into account, it is the Company's view that he was fairly and reasonably treated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court does not consider that the sanction imposed in this case was, in all the circumstances, inappropriate. The Court, however, is of the view that the sanction should be removed from the Claimant's record with effect from the date of this Recommendation.
The Court notes the views expressed at the hearing that the parties are prepared to put this matter behind them and carry on as if it had not occurred. The Court would also hope that the parties have learned from this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th_May, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.