FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES (NORTHSIDE) LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Disciplinary Sanction / Procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by the Union of Management's decision to issue the Worker who is employed as a Sales Assistant in the Northside Store, three days of unpaid suspension on foot of allegations of misconduct relating to an interaction with another member of staff. At issue is whether or not fair procedures were followed in progressing the case and if so whether or not the sanction was justified.
On the 23rd May, 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 9th August, 2013. The Company wrote to the Court on 27th June 2013 advising that they would not be in attendance at the hearing.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was invited to a meeting without prior notice of its purpose and indeed it had moved from being an investigation to a disciplinary meeting.
This runs contrary to fair procedures and led to a prejudicial outcome.
2. When the matter was appealed through internal procedures no oral hearing was allowed and the matter was conducted through written submissions thus preventing the Worker the opportunity to fully outline his issues and to have his Trade Union Representative present.
3. The sanction was upheld on appeal with no explanation of why having regard to the points raised in the appeal submission.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company did not attend, was not represented at the hearing and did not provide any submission to the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Act. The Company decided not to attend the hearing into the dispute or to otherwise make submissions to the Court on the matter.
The Court, therefore, decided to consider the matters in dispute on the basis of the submissions and evidence before it.
The Court finds that the procedures adopted by the Company in this case do not meet the standards set out in S.I. No 146 of 2000. Accordingly the Court recommends that the disciplinary sanction imposed be set aside and that the Company bring its procedures in line with S.I. No 146 of 2000.
The Court did not investigate the substantive issue that gave rise to the disciplinary sanction and accordingly makes no finding or recommendation in that regard.
The Court so finds and recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30th September, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.