FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KEELINGS DISTRIBUTION LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY INDEPENDENT WORKERS UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Unfairly issued with a Final Written Warning.
BACKGROUND:
2. While on certified sick leave the Claimant was informed by a colleague of a pending Union meeting at the Company's premises. The Claimant sought and received Management permission to attend the meeting which took place on 12th September, 2007. There were heated exchanges between Union officials, Union members and the Claimant which resulted in an alleged fracas and the eventual calling of the Garda�. Management investigated the circumstances surrounding the case and a disciplinary hearing was arranged during which time the Claimant could clarify his role if any in the events of that day. The Claimant contends that he was denied natural justice as no 'charge sheet' was supplied by Management and therefore the issues to be addressed were both vague and ambiguous making it difficult for him to prepare a proper defence. The Claimant was issued with a Final Written Warning which he believes to be disproportionate with regard to the circumstances of the case.
On the 15th May, 2008 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th July, 2008.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker had the permission of two managers to attend the meeting while on sick-leave on the Company's property Therefore it would be unfair to cite this as a transgression of the Company's Rules.
- 2.The decision to extend the scope of the disciplinary hearing to also include 'subsequent conduct during same' which refers to the Union meeting, mid-way through the process compromised the Worker's right to a fair hearing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1. The decision by the Worker while he was on Certified Sick Leave to attend a Union meeting of which he was not a member and knowing that his presence would not be welcome and likely to lead to a heated confrontational incident, was a clear breach of Company rules.
- 2. The Worker was facilitated by the Company with regard to his health issues and also afforded all aspects of Natural Justice and Fair Procedures as set down in the Employee Handbook.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues for consideration in this case is whether the Company acted reasonably in concluding that the Claimant was guilty of misconduct and whether the imposition of a final written warning was a fair and proportionate response.
The Claimant contends that he was not afforded a fair opportunity to address the complaints against him and that the requirements of natural justice were not observed in the investigation of those complaints.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was appraised of the complaints against him and that he had an adequate opportunity to prepare and present a defence. While the nature and extent of the complaints could have been expressed with greater clarity at the initial stages of the investigation, the Claimant was in no doubt following the meeting of 25th September 2007 of what was in issue. This was further confirmed in a letter of 8th October 2007, in which the Claimant was invited to a disciplinary interview on the 11th October 2007.
The Court is further satisfied that the Claimant was afforded a full and fair opportunity to address the complaints against him and to be represented at this meeting. The sanction imposed was, in the circumstances, fair and proportionate.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court does not accept that the Claimant was treated unfairly. Accordingly it does not recommend concession of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th July, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.