FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MORUS LIMITED TRADING AS METRO HOTEL DUBLIN AIRPORT - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Disciplinary Sanction.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker has worked as the Night Supervisor in the hotel in Ballymun for the past six years and up until September, 2012 there were no complaints by Management regarding his work performance or his people skills while interacting with colleagues or customers. Within the space of a couple of months there were three allegations of misconduct made against the Worker both by customers and work colleagues. The Company held an investigation into the issues and a written warning was placed on his file. The sanction was appealed and was partly upheld and the sanction was reduced to a verbal warning. The Worker then referred the matter to the Rights Commissioner Service but the Company was unwilling to attend.
On the 28th March 2013 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st July 2013. The Employer informed the Court by letter that they would not be participating in a Labour Court process and would not attend the hearing.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The sanction imposed was unjustified and the appeal procedure was flawed as witnesses were not interviewed nor asked to make a statement regarding the alleged inappropriate behaviour.
2. The Claimant is of the belief that there is a connection between the issues raised by Management and a PRSI contribution shortfall that rendered the Worker ineligible for certain Social Welfare illness benefits that came to light around the same time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer in this case decided not to attend nor be represented at the hearing into this dispute.
On the basis of the evidence before it the Court finds that the disciplinary procedure employed in this case does not comply with the provisions of Statutory Instrument No 146 of 2000. The Worker was not afforded a right to representation, the Company refused to take evidence from a witness that could corroborate his version of events and the sanction imposed remains on his record for an inordinately long period of time. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Worker was denied access to fair procedures and the outcome of the flawed process that was employed cannot stand.
The Court further notes that the Worker had a six-year unblemished employment record at the time the disciplinary process commenced and that it coincided with a query he had made to the Department of Social Protection regarding a shortfall in the number of Social Insurance Contributions his employer had made on his behalf in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 contribution years.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the sanction imposed be rescinded and that the Company’s procedures be amended to bring them into line with S. I. No 146/2000.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
1st August, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.