FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CONOCO PHILLIPS IRELAND LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of final written warning
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker has been employed as a fitter with the Company for 11 years. He is a day operator and provides shift cover when required. The case concerns an appeal of a disciplinary investigation of an incident which occurred on the morning of 17th June, 2009. A disciplinary hearing took place on the 30th June, 2009, and a further one on the 13th July, 2009. The decision reached was to issue a final written warning against the worker which would remain on his file for 12 months. The worker appealed the decision and an appeals hearing took place on the 7th August, 2009. The worker's Union representative felt that an apology might sort out the dispute but none was forthcoming. The decision of the Appeals Board was to uphold the final written warning. The warning has now expired.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 17th November, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th September, 2010, in Cork.. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company used its Disciplinary Procedures against the worker in a clearly unfair manner. The purpose of the Procedures is to"promote fairness in treatment of individuals in the Company".This did not happen in the present case for the following reasons:
- The investigating team did not interview all the witnesses put forward by the worker.
- The team did not keep accurate records of various meetings held and their contemporaneous notes did not reflect what witnesses actually said.
- A number of witnesses complained of intimidation by members of management but nothing was done about this.
- The worker was refused his right of appeal to a Rights Commissioner.
4. 1. The complaint made by the Supervisor against the worker was taken very seriously by the Company which is why it issued the final written warning.
2. The Company at all times observed fair and proper procedures during the investigation. The worker was well represented, witnesses were provided with ample opportunity to be heard and all hearings and appeals were exceptionally thorough.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by the Union on behalf of the Claimant against a final written warning issued to him on 16th July 2009 following a disciplinary investigation conducted by the Company into a serious complaint made against him. The Union alleges that in conducting the investigation the Company failed to adhere to its own procedures, to the principles of natural justice and the Claimant was not allowed a reasonable opportunity to appeal the warning.
The Company maintained that it had adhered to fair and proper procedures when it investigated the serious formal complaint against the claimant.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was appraised of the complaints made against him, he was afforded a full and fair opportunity to address those complaints and to be represented at the disciplinary meetings. He availed of the opportunity to appeal the sanction made against him and the concern he raised were addressed in that appeal process. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that the process was conducted expeditiously with detailed notes been taken at all stages.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the disciplinary process entered into was thorough, fair and reasonable and, accordingly, upholds the Company’s actions.
The Court notes that the warning issued to the Claimant has since expired and has been removed from his file as though it never existed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th September, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.