FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BREEO FOODS LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DAIRY EXECUTIVES'ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Disciplinary issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned has 32 years' service with the Company. On 25th April, 2006, a letter was forwarded to the Worker concerning a proposed transfer from Castlefarm to Cahir Hill. Previously, in March, 2006 the question of a severance option was raised and a once-off offer was discussed on an all-inclusive basis. The Worker, after consideration, declined to accept.
The Worker, at this time, was certified as medically unfit for work. On 28th April, 2006, the Worker was requested by letter to attend a meeting with the Operations Director and the HR Manager. On 3rd May, 2006, the Worker replied stating that he was unable to attend as he was out of work due to illness.
Following a 'Back-to-Work' meeting on 19th May, 2007 the Worker was told to report for work on Monday 22nd May, 2007, that he would not be paid from 4th May, 2007, and that he would be dismissed if he did not return to work on the 22nd May. He was also told that he would be notified of a disciplinary meeting where he would be entitled to bring a representative.
The disciplinary hearing took place on the 15th June, 2007, and the result of this was communicated to the Worker by letter dated 7th July, 2007. The letter also stated that it was confirmation of a final written warning issued on the15th June.
The Worker appealed the decision by letter dated 11th July, 2007. The appeal hearing took place on the19th July, 2007, and the result was communicated to the Worker's representative on the 9th August, 2007.
On 4th September, 2007 a letter was forwarded to the Labour Relations Commission seeking a conciliation conference regarding the issues in dispute. The Company was not agreeable to having the matter progressed through the services of the Commission.
The Dairy Executives' Association on behalf of the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 15th January, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th November, 2007.
The Company did not attend the hearing but sent in a written statement outlining the reasons why the case should not proceed.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker, from the point of view of natural justice, is entitled to an independent assessment of the matters in contention.
2. The Union maintains that the Company has attempted to deny the Worker the right of appeal to an appropriate third party.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company stated that they have been informed by letter that the Worker is intending to pursue a claim in the Employment Appeals Tribunal and that therefore it would be inappropriate for the Company to attend the Labour Court hearing as events have overtaken the original Court referral and sworn evidence is now appropriate in the case.
2. The Company maintains that it would be unfair should the Worker rely on one set of evidence before the Labour Court and another before the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns a dispute over the disciplinary procedures adopted by the Company in the matter of the Claimant involved in this case. The Association on his behalf submitted that the Company failed to abide by its own disciplinary procedures and sought re-instatement of his right to refer the matter to a third party for investigation in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the procedural steps outlined in the Company’s Human Resource Management Policies and Procedures Document.
The Employer declined to attend the Court’s investigation into the claim, which was brought under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company forwarded a written statement to the Court outlining the reasons why the case should not proceed. It was pointed out to the Eployer that as the claim was not withdrawn, the Court must proceed to hear it and issue a recommendation. Therefore, the only evidence before the Court was the written and oral submissions made by the Association on behalf of the Claimant.
Based on the information supplied, the Court makes no finding on the issues that gave rise to the disciplinary action, however, it is of the view that the disciplinary procedures adopted by the Company were not carried out in accordance with their own procedures nor in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company should participate in any third party investigation sought by the claimant to consider his appeal of the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon him.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th December, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.