FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUSINESS MOBILE SECURITY SERVICES LTD T/A SENACA GROUP - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-117871-ir-11/SR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.r-117871-ir-11/SR. The issue concerns an employee who was employed as a Security Officer on a site operated by a client of his employer. The worker allegedly permitted unauthorised access onto the site and was subsequently suspended with pay pending an investigation. The Union's position is that the final written warning and relocation imposed on the worker was inappropriate and extreme disciplinary sanction. The Union also contends that the employer failed to fairly treat the worker in dealing with the disciplinary process as it did not offer the worker representation at the disciplinary meeting, or a postponement of the appeal hearing due to the unavailability of the Union to attend on the date originally offered.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 6th July 2012 and recommended that the final written warning be expunged from the file and that the worker be returned to his original workstation after a period no more than six months. On the 15th August 2012, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15th, November 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The worker had been absent on leave and a change had occurred in the screening of visitors to the site. This was not known to the worker on his return from leave.
2. Management failed to follow fair procedure in its investigation of the incident . The worker was not offered representation at the disciplinary meeting and a request for a postponement of an appeal hearing was denied. This denied the worker fair procedure and resulted in the imposition of an inappropriate and extreme disciplinary sanction.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was well aware of the screening process for allowing visitors onto the site. There had been no change to the process while the worker was on leave.
2. Management followed its own procedures at all times. Given the serious nature of the incident, management had to impose an appropriate sanction to ensure that such occurrences did not happen again.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner to expunge the finial warning issued to the Claimant had been accepted by the employer. The only outstanding issue is the decision to transfer the Claimant to another location. The Company told the Court that the transfer is necessary in order to facilitate retraining the Claimant.
In the Court’s view a period of two months should be sufficient to provide the Claimant with the necessary retraining. According the Court varies the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner so as to provide that the Claimant be returned to his original work location after a period of two months on the new location.
The recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th December, 2012.______________________
AH.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.