FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NATIONAL REHABILITATION HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No: r-116671-Ir-11 MMG
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No: r-116671-Ir-11 MMG. The issue concerns disciplinary sanctions imposed on the worker following an altercation with his supervisor and the subsequent appeals process. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 17th April 2012 and recommended that the warning given to the worker should remain until its normal expiry and that the period of suspension without pay be reduced. On the 11th May 2013, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd August 2012 and was adjourned to allow for an appeal of the disciplinary sanctions. A reconvened hearing took place on the 31st July 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker was not afforded fair procedures and natural justice in relation to the alleged incident and the subsequent investigation. The worker is seeking that the written warning be expunged from his file and the loss of two weeks' salary be repaid to him
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management followed it procedures at all times during the process. It also took into account the worker's length of service and work record over many years in arriving at its original decision. Management accepts the outcome of the external appeal on the matter.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found that in all the circumstances of the case a disciplinary warning given to the worker should remain until its normal expiry date and a two week period of unpaid suspension should be amended down to one week.
At the initial hearing before the Court the Union sought an appeal of the investigation carried out into the matters which gave rise to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the worker. The employer offered to provide such an appeal.
The Court is satisfied that the appeal process was carried out in accordance with the methodology and terms of reference agreed between the parties. The Court notes that the Union had no issue with the investigation process carried out. The outcome of the appeal investigation held the written warning provided to the worker should be expunged; a letter should be provided to him advising him that similar behaviour in the future could result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal and it revised the unpaid suspension down to three days. The Union was not satisfied with the outcome of the external appeal investigation. The employer accepted the outcome.
The Court has considered all aspects of the appeal and in an effort to bring closure to this long running matter makes the following recommendations. The Court notes the employer’s confirmation that the written warning will be expunged from the worker’s personnel file in line with the outcome of the external appeal investigation. At the hearing it was agreed between the parties that the employer will set out its requirement in respect of the worker’s future workplace behaviour to the Trade Union Official who will undertake to discuss the matter with the worker. Finally, the Court recommends that the period of unpaid suspension should be reduced to three days in line with the outcome of the external appeal investigator’s findings.
Therefore, the Court varies the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation accordingly.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd September 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.