FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BANK OF IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DAVID FAGAN, SOLICITOR) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-124751-ir-12.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Employer's issuing the Worker a verbal caution due to alleged non-performance issues. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 11th December, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "The Respondents are entitled to set goals for the Claimant as per his contract. They are also entitled to invoke the disciplinary procedure if these goals are not achieved. I do not find the claim well-founded and it fails. I accept the Respondents have tried to resolve the issue but the Claimant has not shown any flexibility in his approach. The Respondents have had to restructure their business to survive. The Claimant should reconsider his position in light of proposals made by the Respondent. As things stand I do not find his complaint well-founded."
On the 17th January, 2013 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th April, 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker's performance is satisfactory and above average.
2. The Employer refused to discuss the Worker's performance is a meaningful way.
3.The verbal caution was issued in breach of fair procedure.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Employer has a legitimate right to set performance goals and to assist under-performing staff to improve.
2.The Employer has at all times treated the Worker in accordance with its Disciplinary Procedures.
3.A verbal caution is not a disciplinary sanction under the terms of the Disciplinary Procedures.
DECISION:
It is accepted by the Bank that the Claimant was not informed in advance of the meeting on 25thJune 2012 that it was being held pursuant to the Bank's disciplinary procedure. That omission placed the Claimant at a disadvantage in mounting a defence to the complaints concerning his performance. While it is noted that under the disciplinary procedure a meeting at which a verbal caution is issued is not regarded as a disciplinary meeting it was, in the Court’s opinion, unfair to deal with this matter in circumstances where the Claimant had no advance notice of the purpose of the meeting or of what was in contemplation.
It is the decision of the Court that the verbal caution issued to the Claimant should be regarded as outside the ambit of the disciplinary procedures and should not be relied upon for the purposes of that procedure.
The recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30 April, 2013______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.