FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ENABLE IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal the sanction of a final written warning & redeployment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Case concerns a dispute between the Company and the worker in relation to an appeal of a disciplinary sanction. The worker was given a final written warning and re-deployed at a different level as a result of an investigation into alleged sub standard performance.
The matter was not resolved at local level and was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation .
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th October, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1The investigation into the alleged performance issues went beyond its terms of reference and included Individual Learning Plans (ILP's) which it should not have done. This led to a more serious sanction of a final written warning and effectively a demotion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Issues had previously been raised in relation to the worker's performance and her failure to carry out her duties or manage her level of responsibilities. This led to a breach of trust and lack of confidence in the worker's ability to carry out a senior role in the organisation. The subsequent investigation was carried out in line with its terms of reference and the sanction issued was appropriate in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 concerns the Claimant's appeal of a final written warning issued to her in July 2011 and re-instatement to her position as CE Supervisor.
Having considered the oral and written submissions made by both parties the Court is of the view that the Claimant's performance issues highlighted by the Employer in 2010 could potentially have been dealt with in a more constructive manner. The Court fully accepts that the standards set by the employer should have been met, however, it is of the view that the Claimant should have been given a development plan coupled with the necessary training required to bring about the performance improvements sought before resorting to the level of disciplinary action taken in this case.
The Court notes that the final written warning has since expired and has been expunged from the Claimant's personnel file.
In the present circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant should be re-instated in her position as CE Supervisor, the employer should clearly identify the performance standards required, provide the Claimant with the necessary training to meet those standards and provide regular reviews of her performance to ensure she is fully aware of the standards required.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th November, 2012.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.