ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000220
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/02/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Witnesses | {text} | {te
xt} |
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
My employer conducted an investigation into an incident at work and subsequently issued me with Final Written Warning. The investigation took place in circumstances where, while the employer viewed and relied upon cctv footage in arriving at their conclusions I was denied access to the cctv footage which I contend would have completely c1eared me of any alleged offence. In this I submit I was denied absolutely the only possible defence which I could have relied upon to refute the allegations made against my conduct. As such I submit that the sanction imposed should be withdrawn completely. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The incidents surrounding the origin of the claim were subject to a very comprehensive three stage internal Investigative/appeals process.
The issue of the use of CCTV was addressed on four occasions and the provisions/restrictions of the Data Protection legislation pointed out to the Complainant.
In direct evidence the Respondent’s representatives confirmed that the CCTV footage had not been used in the initial investigations and the maximum allowable material from the CCTV – a series of “still” images had been provided to the Complainant.
In evidence it was confirmed that the Head of IT for the Employer, a major Public Authority, had confirmed the legal position in relation to Date Protection legislation as it applied to this case. The privacy rights of other staff members also captured on CCTV had a legal right to be equally protected. Staff involved were requested to agree to the release of the CCTV images and had declined.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the Acts.
Issues for Decision:
Appropriateness of sanction of Final Written Warning to the Complainant
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and Workplace Relations Act, 2015
Decision:
Having reviewed all the evidence presented, both oral and written, I came to the following conclusions.
The Respondent has a very well developed internal Disciplinary and Grievance system, agreed and negotiated with the relevant Trade Unions, which was used to the full in this case. No fault can be attached to the Respondent is this matter. Full witness evidence was obtained and procedures properly followed up to and including an Internal Appeal.
However the Complainant has a major sense of Grievance, founded in a sense of Natural Justice, in relation to not being able to have full access to all the CCTV material. Counterbalancing this was the right of privacy of other staff, covered by the CCTV, to refuse permission to allow their images be viewed.
The Respondent was at all times acting on legal /expert advice in this matter as well as existing agreements with staff in relation to this area.
I recommend accordingly as follows
The Final Written Warning be reduced by one level to a Written Warning.
The Respondent Employer and the relevant Trade Unions/Representative Bodies meet to review and agree a new protocol , ( seeking to balance the legal rights of all staff )covering the use of CCTV and other new Social Media ( Mobile Phone /Mobile Device recordings) in staff Grievance and Disciplinary matters.
Dated: 26/4/2016