ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000315

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/03/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] 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).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The claimant has been employed as a machine operator/general operative since 1996 – he was approached by his supervisor in August 2015 , presented with a copy of his time and attendance records and was advised that a date would be set for a disciplinary hearing.It was contended that at the disciplinary hearing , the claimant’s supervisor was unwilling to accept any explanation for absences on the 31^st.Oct. 2014 and the 3^rd.Nov.2014 and insisted that the claimant was taking long  weekends off.An updated attendance sheet was presented to him at the meeting – it was contended that the document revealed an increase in the level of absenteeism for 2.01% to 3.21%.Reference was made to a further absence in August 2015 but it was accepted that this was owing to the hospitalisation of the claimant’s wife.Ultimately the claimant was issued with a verbal warning – he appealed the warning but his appeal was not upheld.It was submitted that the sanction was unfair and unjust – the claimants attendance record did not show a recurring pattern of absence and the claimant had not been counselled by the respondent prior to the disciplinary hearing.It was advanced that the respondent views the disciplinary procedure as a stick by which it can beat its employees It was submitted that the claimant was deeply aggrieved by the respondent’s actions and was requesting to have the warning rescinded from his file.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent set out a chronology of the meetings held with the claimant following the issuing of a CoreTime report.It was submitted that the respondent had given due consideration to the infringements connected with the illness of the claimant’s wife but a warning was appropriate in circumstances where the claimant was late for work on 2 occasions – 5^th.Sept. and 16^th.Dec. , he was absent on the 31^st.Oct. and 3^rd.Nov. – he was guilty of time infringements and it was advanced that his absence record was below standard.It was advanced that the company lateness policy – agreed with the union – states that “ any employee who reports late for work shall be liable to the disciplinary procedure.It was submitted that as far as the respondent was concerned the warning was justified on the basis of the claimant’s sporadic absences and lateness on a number of occasions.

Decision:

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

Issues for Decision:

Was the sanction of a verbal warning appropriate and fair

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Industrial Relations Acts 1946-1990

Recommendation

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and concluded that the respondent failed to observe their own disciplinary procedures which states as follows:

“The parties agree that the primary aim of the disciplinary procedure is to help the individual whose performance or conduct falls below company requirements where counselling/training , where appropriate , have not been successful in achieving the necessary improvement.When further action becomes necessary , the parties agree to the following procedure…”

In the circumstances I consider the issuing of a verbal warning was premature and the option of counselling/training should have been adopted in the first instance. In the circumstances I uphold the complaint and require the respondent to rescind the warning.

Dated:   18 May 2016