FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MUSGRAVE OPERATING PARTNERS IRELAND T/A SUPER VALU - AND - KATARZYNA STRZELECKA (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-142672-ir-14/JOC
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is a cross appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-142672-ir-14/JOC. The issue concerns a Duty Manager employed by the Company who was demoted and received a final written warning for alleged errors in the recording of stock control. The worker contends that she had followed procedures correctly and that there was no intentional miscalculation or dishonesty on her part. Management contends that the worker was responsible for stock control and had made serious errors/miscalculations which could not be overlooked. It contends the disciplinary sanctions imposed were proportionate and appropriate. It does not accept that the worker should be compensated in any way.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on the 30th September 2014 and recommended that the worker should step down from her position as Duty Manager (Delicatessen) and that she be given €5500 in compensation in full and final settlement of the claim.
The employer and the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation on the 17th October 2014 and 5th November 2014 respectively. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th December 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management did not follow the agreed procedures when investigating this issue or in conducting the disciplinary process. The worker was not informed that she could be represented at the investigation stage and was not provided with all the necessary documentation or given an opportunity to respond to the specifics of the allegations made against her.
2 The sanction of demotion imposed on the worker is unwarranted. The related loss of earnings is approximately €7500 per year which is completely unfair in all the circumstances. The Union is seeking to have the worker re-appointed to the Duty Manager Grade on the basis that management based its decision to demote the worker largely on hearsay evidence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management must ensure that its stock control procedures are followed correctly. The worker knowingly breached the stock control monitoring procedures and was subsequently disciplined in line with Company procedures. The internal appeal of the disciplinary sanction upheld the demotion and rescinded the final written warning. Management has accepted this but does not accept the Rights Commissioner's findings on the issue in dispute.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds as follows:
1.The Claimant did not adequately perform the stock control duties assigned to her. As a consequence the Company was justified in reassigning her to another less responsible post within the store.2.The procedures followed by the Company in investigating this matter fell below the high standards it has agreed with the Mandate Trade Union for the conduct of such matters. However the decisions it reached were largely fair and proportionate and are substantively upheld by the Court.
3.The Court finds that the award of €5,000 recommended by the Rights Commissioner is excessive in all the circumstances of the case. The Court varies this amount to €3,500 which sum it considers reasonable and proportionate.
4.The Court notes that the Claimant has an otherwise exemplary work record. In those circumstances the Court recommends that the Claimant be provided with training and career development support to enable her to acquire the training necessary to fairly compete for promotion to a post of responsibility in due course.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
9th January 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.