ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000872

Complaint/Dispute for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/03/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant’s hours had been reduced following internal disciplinary proceedings as a result of a decision not to assign her to a certain site where the company provided services where difficulties had arisen.

This had resulted in her hours falling to four hours per week.

In addition she was suspended from work pending fresh disciplinary proceedings arising from an incident on March 11^th 2015 and was uncertain about whether she remained in employment.

She had further complaints about inter-personal difficulties with her supervisor.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The company confirmed that the complainant remained in its employment pending the conclusion of the disciplinary process which arose from the incident on March 11^th 2016.. This incident, had its roots in the previous disciplinary decision which had resulted in the curtailment of her hours and on the sites to which she could be assigned.

It emerged that subject to the outworking of that disciplinary process, in principle the respondent was prepared to allocate hours to the complainant as they became available.

 Conclusion and Findings

The complainant appeared to believe that her employment had been terminated and had been seeking her P45 but the respondent clarified that this was not the case and that she remained in employment.

Also, it was established that she had in fact been provided with a statement of her Terms of Employment and this claim was withdrawn at the hearing.

Following the exploration of an amicable solution between the parties it emerged that the complainant was willing to apologise for the incident on March 11^th and the respondent indicated that this would be acceptable to it.

It was further accepted by the parties that there would be a return to the status quo in respect of the rostering of the complainant and that she would accept that any future grievance arising would be processed in accordance with the company’s grievance machinery and that this would be dealt with promptly.

I commend both parties for the spirit with which they approached the resolution of this matter.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint)/dispute) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

The claim under the Terms of Employment Act was withdrawn and I dismiss that claim.

I recommend that the complainant apologise to the respondent for the incident on March 11^th 2016 and that the ensuing disciplinary proceedings should be dropped subject to this.

I recommend that the company return to normal rostering of the complainant subject to application of its normal criteria.

Finally, I recommend that the respondent refresh the complainant on the content and operation of its grievance policy and that the complainant process any future grievance strictly in accordance with its provisions.

Dated:   7/4/2016