FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUNKER ESTATES LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Removal of disciplinary warning from personnel file
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and his employer in relation to the imposition of a final written warning on his personnel file. The worker was employed at the Company's licensed premises as an assistant manager. He is alleged to have provided food at a discounted rate to another staff member and to have misrepresented himself when questioned by management.
The worker claims that when the other staff member called to collect the food, which was to be used at a function off the premises, an incident arose on the basis that some of the food was overcooked. As a gesture of goodwill, and as the customer in this instance was a fellow staff member, the Claimant contends that he gave a discount. He claims that his actions were reasonable in his management role and that he had not intended any dishonesty at the time, or subsequently when speaking with senior management.
Management's position is that a key element of its relationship with its staff is trust, and in this case, the Claimant breached that trust. It is alleged that he claimed he could not remember how much food was given out and later changed his story when further questioned.
Management undertook a disciplinary process and demoted the Claimant to the rank of Senior Barperson, which also meant a €50 per week drop in salary. A final written warning was also placed on his file as a result and was to last for 2 years. It is against the sanctions imposed by management that form the subject of this complaint.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 11th March, 2009 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th April, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was unable to charge full price for the food as it was overcooked. This was reasonable on the basis of his management role with the Company.
2 It was busy on the evening in question and the Claimant had forgotten what he had given to the other staff member. The Claimant subsequently confirmed to management, by his own volition, what food had actually been supplied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Claimant made an error in judgement on the night. Management accept it was not intentional fraud. He did, however, misrepresent himself in relation to the incident and only amended his story at the disciplinary stage of the process.
2 Given the breach of trust that occurred, Management contend that its procedures were followed flawlessly and a final written warning and a demotion was warranted in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the Company acted properly in imposing the disciplinary action at issue.
However, there are mitigating factors in the case. There is no question of personal gain on the part of the Claimant. He also has long and blemish free service to the Company.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the final written warning should expire after 12 months. The Court further recommends that the Claimant be restored to his former position after 12 months satisfactory service in the demoted position.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th May 2009______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.