LCR20276

The Union/Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Company never informed the Worker that the meetings were disciplinary in nature, neither did they offer the Worker any representation as per its own disciplinary policy.

2. The Worker was left exposed and vulnerable to a Management team culture that has decided to deviate from the fundamentals of natural justice.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court notes that Dunnes Stores Management decided not to attend the hearing.

Having considered the submission the Court, on the information available to it, makes the following findings and recommendation: -

• 1. Contrary to the Company’s own procedures, the worker involved was not given sufficient advance notice that the meetings to which she was invited on 18th June 2010, 17th December 2010 and 5^thMarch 2011 were disciplinary in nature.
  2. Contrary to the Company’s own procedure, the worker involved was not given the opportunity to be accompanied at those meetings by a friend or work colleague
  3. Contrary to its own procedures, Management failed at those meetings to set out the charges against her in sufficient detail to enable her to prepare a defence, offer an explanation for, or make representations in mitigation of any shortcomings on her part.
  4. The Worker concerned was not properly notified of the disciplinary nature of the meeting with Management on 1 July 2011. Furthermore the worker was not given sufficient details of the alleged shortages/overs on which the decision to issue a written warning was taken. Finally the Worker was not given any opportunity to consider the alleged shortcomings in her behaviour, to make representations in her defence nor to arrange for representation by a competent person at the meeting.
  5. The Court finds that these failures on the Company’s part amounted to a denial of fair procedure in the exercise of its rights and obligations under the staff manual.
  6. The decision to issue a written warning was taken by the Store Manager. Accordingly the Court finds that the avenue of appeal offered to the Worker was inadequate as the appeals officer was himself subordinate to the original decision maker and could not be expected to exercise independent judgement in this case. The Court finds that this amounted to a denial of fair procedure.
  7. The appeals officer decided the appeal by way of written submissions only despite the fact that the Worker involved was unaware that no oral hearing would be conducted. Furthermore the evidence presented to the appeals officer by the Company was not provided to the Worker for comment or observation. The Court finds that this amounted to a further denial of fair procedure to the Worker concerned.
  8. The appeals officer upheld the sanction originally imposed by the store manager. However the sanction appears to have no time limit attached to it. On the face of it the sanction will remain on the employees record indefinitely. The Court finds that this is disproportionate and unfair and amounts to a further denial of fair procedures to the Worker concerned.