FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR-39044/05/MR
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is employed by Clare County Council as a Museum attendant in Clare County Museum for approximately six years. The Union is appealing against a written warning issued by the Council to the Claimant in July 2005. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 9th August, 2006, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
- “I now formally recommend that Clare County Council should amend the disciplinary sanction imposed on the Claimant in July 2005 to a Verbal Warning and that this Warning should be regarded as having expired in January 2006, in line with Paragraph 4.3 of the Council’s Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure.
For their part, the Claimant and SIPTU should accept this amendment in full and final settlement of this dispute”.
- (The Claimant’s name was mentioned in the Rights Commissioners Recommendation)
On the 12th September, 2006 the Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th June, 2007.
3.1 The Union contends that the Council were remiss in not following the rules of natural justice in supplying the Claimant with details of the allegations against her prior to or on 24th June, 2005 and in not reconvening the disciplinary investigation meeting to allow her to respond in full to the allegations made. No detailed investigation with corroborating supporting statements from fellow staff members was carried out to substantiate the allegations.
2. The Council denied the Claimant the right to a fair and impartial hearing in that the Stage 2 written warning was issued on spurious grounds and on the basis that five verbal warnings had been issued to the Claimant. The Union claims that this has been proven to be untrue with no record of any of these warnings or no recollection by the Claimant of ever having been told that she was receiving a warning.
3. The Claimant believes that the Rights Commissioner erred in not fully taking into account the technical inconsistencies in the Council's case and ignoring the potential for counselling as outlined in 1.3 of the disciplinary procedure to deal with any alleged short comings they may have felt existed in the Claimant's performance. If there was a performance issue it should have been brought to the Claimant's attention prior to June, 2005 and she should have been given an opportunity to remedy same.
4. The Union claims that the Claimant has been treated unfairly in that, proper process, protocol and justice has been denied her and believe that the warning as issued, whilst technically incorrect, is also unjust, unfair and harsh in the extreme. The Union is seeking that the written warning be rescinded, the Claimant's good name and character restored to allow her to redress the effect that this whole episode has had on her life.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Council is satisfied that the procedures used fully comply with the provisions of the Council's Grievances and Disciplinary policy. The procedures were agreed at national level and management believes they are both fair and just. The Claimant has been treated fairly in accordance with those procedures.
2. Management contends that the Claimant was afforded every opportunity to put her case forward, to avail of representation and to exercise her right of appeal.
3. The Councils decision to issue a written warning was fair and appropriate having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The incidents concerned were considered to be of such a serious nature that they warranted a written warning.
4. The Council accepted the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
DECISION:
It is clear that the issue now before the Court is a manifestation of a serious underlying problem in the working relationship between the Claimant and her employer. In the Court's view the Union and the Council should take responsibility for seeking to bring about a resolution of this underlying problem, with external professional assistance if necessary.
The Court is strongly of the view that the parties should meet, as a matter of urgency, for the purpose of commencing this process. The Court is further of the view that the issue now before the Court should be disposed of in the context of a resolution of this underlying problem.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th_July, 2007______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.