FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY LIMERICK RESOURCE CENTRE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Decision No: r-132306-ir-13/GC
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Decision No: r-132306-ir-13/GC. The issue concerns a disciplinary process and the sanctions that were subsequently imposed. The worker is also seeking the retrospective payment of losses of earnings incurred while he was suspended on basic pay only during the process and that the second warning be expunged from his file. The worker also contends that he was bullied throughout the employment.The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 17th October 2013. The Rights Commissioner noted in her Recommendation that the final written warning imposed was reduced on appeal to a second written warning. The Right's Commissioner did not find in favour of the worker's claim that this sanction be expunged. The Rights Commissioner also found against the worker's claim for retrospective payment of allowances and premium payments that were not paid to him while he was on suspension.
On the 24th October 2013, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1st April 2014.
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The investigative and disciplinary process was not carried out in a fair and transparent manner or in line with Company procedures. The worker was given an undertaking by the employer that he would receive full pay while on suspension. This did not happen. The non-payment of wages due throughout the investigation was itself a sanction and the subsequent imposition of a final written warning was a further excessive sanction. The worker is seeking that he be paid for the losses of earnings incurred while on suspension and that the second written warning imposed against him be expunged from his file.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The worker was represented by his Trade Union at all times during the process which was carried out in compliance with Company procedures. The worker was suspended on basic pay and succeeded in having the final written warning reduced to a second written warning on appeal. At no time during the process did the worker or his Trade Union representative suggest that he was being bullied. The Company is seeking that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be affirmed and that the appeal be rejected.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the Claimant was afforded professional representation by his trade union at every stage of the disciplinary process and no objection was taken to the procedures followed. In any event it is clear that the Claimant was at all times aware of the allegations against him and that he had a full opportunity to meet those allegations. The Court is also satisfied that the appeal was conducted in accordance with the procedures normally followed by the Company.
In these circumstances the Court does not see any basis upon which it could interfere with the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation in relation to the warning imposed.
On the question of the Claimant’s suspension, the Court believes that the loss of earnings suffered by the Claimant is incompatible with the notion of a suspension on full pay. The suspension was not a disciplinary sanction. It was preventative in nature and was solely for the purpose of facilitating an investigation. In these circumstances the Court believes that the loss of earnings suffered by the Claimant should be restored.
The Court decides accordingly
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th April 2014______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.