FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KELLSYDAL LIMITED TRADING AS MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT - AND - ROMAN TUNYI (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Due process in disciplinary procedures, denied right to Trade Union representation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker was accused of breaching Company policy by acting in an unprofessional manner towards his restaurant Manager, the Worker denies the allegation. However, the issue before the Court is a claim by the Union that the Employer failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice as set out in S.I.146 of 2000 by denying the Worker the opportunity of being appropriately represented by a representative of his choice, in this instance his Trade Union SIPTU at a disciplinary hearing in December, 2012 at the Castletroy restaurant in Limerick..
On the 26th 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 10th October, 2013. The Company, by letter dated 16th September, 2013 through it's representative informed the Labour Court that it would not be attending the hearing.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The disciplinary process engage in by the Employer is fundamentally flawed and the Final Written Warning letter should be expunged from the Worker's file.
2. The Company has ignored the provisions of S.I.146 of 2000 and the States ultimate industrial relations dispute resolution mechanism.
RECOMMENDATION:
The complaint comes before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946-2012.
The Respondent Company did not attend at the hearing or make submissions to the Court.
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court finds that the Respondent's procedures did not comport with the provisions of S.1.46/2000 and did not provide the Claimant with access to fair procedures. Accordingly, the Court finds that the sanction imposed by the Respondent Company cannot stand.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
5th November, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.