FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE INTOLLIGENT AND A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Removal of Disciplinary Warning
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to the imposition of a "first and final" written warning against the worker following an investigation into alleged underperformance. The Union contends that the worker was subject to an investigation and disciplinary process yet the Union was curtailed in providing the appropriate level of representation to him during the process. The Union contends that the warning was excessive and was implemented unfairly.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 21st October 2013 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd April 2014.
The employer was notified of the date and time of the hearing but did not attend and was not represented.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker was alleged to have underperformed in the course of his duties yet management failed to properly investigate the issues. The Union was then prevented from properly representing the worker in the investigation and disciplinary process and the sanction that resulted was completely excessive and inappropriate. The Union is seeking that the "first and final" warning received be expunged from the worker's record.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the employer declined to attend the hearing held to investigate this dispute and avail of the opportunity to put its version of events to the Court.
It is noted that in the course of the internal disciplinary process the employer restricted the union in the representation it could provide to the worker by confining it to making an opening and closing statement. Having regard to the gravity with which the incident under investigation was viewed by the Company that limitation was unreasonable and rendered the disciplinary process unfair.
The Court also considers that the sanction imposed on the worker was wholly disproportionate having regard to the circumstances in which the incident occurred and the absence of any previous disciplinary issue on the workers record. It is also noted that what was imposed in this case was “a first and final warning”. The Court does not understand what is meant by this expression nor is there any provision in the company’s own procedures for such a warning.
The Court recommends that the warning issued to the worker be rescinded and expunged from his record.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th April 2014______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.