FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AIRCOACH - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-039680-Ir-06/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-039680-Ir-06/JH. The issue concerns an alleged incident involving the non-issuing of a ticket to a passenger who was travelling on the Aircoach service. It was alleged by a member of the public that the Driver in question did not issue a ticket to a passenger, despite the passenger having paid the fare to the Driver.
A subsequent investigation into the incident resulted in a final written warning being given to the Driver who, it is alleged, did not return any additional cash on the day.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. Her recommendation issued on 12th July, 2006 as follows.
Recommendation:
"I recommend that the sanction issued to the Claimant be reduced to a written warning. In making such a recommendation to the employer I also recommend to the Claimant that in future he return accurate overs and unders at the end of each day to avoid a repetition of this incident".
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioners Recommendation.
On the23rd August, 2007, the employer appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 22nd November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The alleged incident was reported by a member of the public. The Employer did not allow the Union to question the allegation or to have the allegation substantiated. The Company simply imposed a sanction of a final written warning on the basis of hearsay.
2 The Driver has had a long and distinguished working career. The suggestion that he acted improperly in any way, is totally refuted and unacceptable.
3 At issue is the absolute importance of the Drivers reputation and good name being restored. At no time did the Driver behave in an inappropriate manner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company acted, as is its right, on the basis of the signed written statement and comments of the complainant. It was not appropriate for the Driver or the Union to question a member of the public on the complaint made.
2 The allegation made was of such a severe nature that it should have resulted in dismissal. Given the previous excellent record of the Driver, the Company reduced the appropriate sanction to the that of a final written warning. The Company feels it acted appropriately at all times.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the warning at issue has already expired. However, the Court understands the importance for both parties of the issue giving rise to the imposition of the warning.
Taking an objective view of the events giving rise to the investigation of misconduct against the Claimant the Court believes that there must have been room for some doubt as whether the source of the allegations could have been mistaken. In these circumstances the Union's request to question the person concerned was not entirely unreasonable.
In the circumstances of the case the Court is of the view that the Claimant should have been afforded the benefit of the doubt and on that account the Court believes that the imposition of a disciplinary sanction, in the face of his firm denial of misconduct and his previous impeccable record, was not appropriate.
As the warning has expired the Court believes that it should only express its opinion in that regard.
The Court is of the view that the Union and the Company should have further discussions on how complaints from members of the public should be dealt with for the purposes of the disciplinary procedure.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd December 2007______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.