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 TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Removal of sanction.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim for the removal of a final written warning imposed on 20th May 2013. On the 23rd October, 2013 the Worker 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 27th November, 2013. The Employer was not present and was not represented at the hearing.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker has been a hard-working member of staff for several years.
2. The Worker now feels that the Employer is preparing to dismiss him by unfairly invoking the disciplinary process.
3.The Worker is being denied proper procedures and natural justice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and concerns a claim for the removal of a final written warning imposed on the Claimant on 20thMay 2013.
The Employer did not attend the hearing. The Court regards it as regrettable that the Employer failed to avail of the opportunity to explain its version of the events giving rise to the claim.
Having considered the submission made by the Union on behalf of the Claimant the Court notes that the HR Manager sent a letter dated 17thMay 2013 to the Claimant inviting him to a formal disciplinary meeting and invited him to be accompanied by a work colleague or a trade union representative in accordance with his statutory right. It does not prescribe any limitations on such representation. The Court is of the view that this invitation fully complied with normal good industrial relations practices and is in line withCode of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 0f 2000.
However, the Union explained to the Court that from its experience with the Company, such trade union representation has not been allowed at similar meetings in the past and all correspondence from the Union has been ignored. The Court notes that at the appeal hearing the Claimant was notified that he was entitled to have a witness present however, this person would not be allowed to speak on his behalf. This action by management is in clear breach of normal industrial relations and of S.I. 146 of 2000.
The Court notes that an investigation into the matter giving rise to the disciplinary sanction was carried out by a manager from a sister hotel. The Court is of the view that on the whole the investigation report is fair and balanced, however, it failed to hear evidence from a witness nominated by the Claimant. The report found that it was not reasonable for the Claimant to leave his duties on the night in question and proceeded to make a number of constructive recommendations to restore a positive working relationship and introduce new working arrangements to avoid a re-occurrence. Included in the recommendations was a proposal to arrange a mediation session between the Claimant and another work colleague. The Union told the Court that this and other recommendations were never carried out, despite the Claimant’s willingness to attend mediation.
At the hearing it was pointed out to the Court that there seems to be an inconsistency in management’s approach to handing situations similar to the one which arose in this incident and that the Claimant was being singled out for disciplinary action. In the absence of any contradiction from the Company on this point, the Court must accept that this is the case.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the disciplinary sanction should be expunged from the Claimant’s file, the mediation process should be initiated and in line with Labour Court Recommendation in LCR 20576, the Court reiterates that the Company’s procedures should be amended to bring them into line with S. I. No 146 of 2000.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th December 2013______________________
CO'RDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.