FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DHL EXPRESS (IRELAND) LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PURDY FITZGERALD SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Warning Expunged
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and his employer in relation to a final written warning. The worker contends that he was given a final written warning for alleged under performance and other issues without an investigation process being initiated. The worker is seeking that the warning be expunged from his personnel file and that he be compensated for the distress caused by management's actions.
On 26th September 2014 the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court 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 21st November 2014.
The employer was notified of the time and date of the hearing but did not attend and was not represented.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker received a final written warning as a result of a disciplinary process but was never given the opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him as there was no investigation process initiated by management. The final written warning was imposed as part of a process that was conducted at variance with the principles of natural justice and fair procedures.
2 There were also other allegations that relationships between the worker and his colleagues had completely broken down yet these allegations were unsubstantiated and subsequently withdrawn by management. Despite the withdrawl of these allegations the worker was not informed of the specifics of what he was being accused of and there was no explanation or apology given to him by management.
3 The worker is justified in seeking that the final written warning be expunged from his personnel file and that he be compensated for the distress caused to him by management's actions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the employer in this case declined to attend the hearing held to investigate this dispute and avail of the opportunity to put forward its position on the matters in dispute.
The information furnished to the Court indicates that the approach of the employer in dealing with the matters in issue fell far short of the objective standards of fairness that could be expected of a reasonable employer. On the uncontested submissions made on behalf of the Claimant, the Court is satisfied that the manner in which the disciplinary process was operated was fundamentally flawed and that the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000) were not adhered in a number of material respects. In particular, the fact that the person who initiated the complaints against the Claimant conducted the disciplinary investigation into those complaints flies in the fact of any reasonable notion of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the fact that the Claimant was suspended for a period of three months before this matter was dealt with is indicative of an adverse disposition against him and a prejudgment of the issue that was to be investigated. Moreover, the imposition of a final written warning is unwarranted and disproportionate.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the sanction imposed on the worker be withdrawn and expunged from his record. The Court also accepts that the worker suffered considerable distress in consequence of the matter in which this issue was handled. That should be acknowledged by the employer and the Claimant should be paid compensation in the amount of €20,000 in recompense for what occurred.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th December 2014______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.