FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN STREET PARKING SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-142227-Ir-14/JW
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-142227-Ir-14/JW. The issue concerns a first written warning given to the worker on the basis of a disciplinary process instigated by Management. The Union contends that the worker was informed that he would be given a first written warning prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary meeting. The Union position is that this is contrary to fair procedures and natural justice and is evidence that the result of the disciplinary process had been pre determined and as such is not in compliant with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000)
Management's position is that the worker did not meet the required performance targets and as such was the subject of a disciplinary process. Management contends that the process was carried out in line with Company procedures and the sanction was appropriate and proportionate.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 27th March 2015 and did not find in favour of the worker's claim. On the 30th April 2015 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 17th June 2015
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management did not follow the appropriate procedures during the investigation process. The imposition of a disciplinary sanction against the worker on the basis of a flawed and unfair process is unacceptable.
2 The Union contends that reaching the agreed targets on the worker's route is not possible given the high level of compliance that exists in his area. If he were assigned to different routes, at least on a rotational basis, the required targets would be more attainable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management does not accept that the disciplinary process was flawed or carried out at variance with the provisions of the relevant Code of Practice. The process was instigated as the worker failed to meet the performance targets required of him and was carried out in accordance with agreed procedures.
2 The required level of performance is agreed as part of collective agreements between the parties. Management must retain the right to ensure that the targets are met and that the workers are aware of the possible sanctions if they fail to meet these targets.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the written and oral submission of both sides to this appeal and while acknowledging and confirming Management’s right to manage underperformance in the Company, the Court, in all the particular circumstances of this case, upholds the appeal. The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is set aside.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
3rd July 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.