FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROSDERRA MEATS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Written Warning.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker in relation to two final written warnings issued to him by his Employer following two alleged incidents in the workplace. The Claimant appealed the sanctions which ultimately resulted in the warnings being downgraded however they remain on the Claimant's personnel record. It is the Claimant's case that the warnings he received were unwarranted and he is seeking the removal of the warnings from his file. The Claimant referred the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8th November, 2016. The Employer was not present and was not represented at the hearing. The Claimant agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (the Act) and concernsa dispute regarding two written warnings issued to the Claimant by the Company.
In submitting his claim the Claimant has in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act undertaken to accept the Recommendation of the Court.
The first written warning was issued to him on 11thMarch 2016 for an alleged incident regarding the defacing of a Company notice, the First Aiders Register. He was found to have inappropriately removed his name from the Company’s public notice displaying the names of First Aiders.
The second written warning issued on 1stApril 2016 and concerned the use of a camera phone on the Company premises contrary to the mobile phone policy and for his failure to fully co-operate with the ensuing investigation.
The Claimant appealed the warnings and they were both downgraded.
The Claimant has 28 years’ service with the Company and had denied any wrong doing. While it was accepted that the Claimant had sought to be removed from First Aid duties, he denied any involvement in the removal of his name from the list.
The Claimant said that he and his work colleagues in the Maintenance Department were firmly of the belief that they were exempt from the mobile phone policy on the basis that the phone cameras were in use as a work tool/aid since 2000, to photograph machinery parts, part numbers and serial numbers, its use was a well-established and current practice with the full knowledge of Management.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant claimed that the warnings were severe and unwarranted and in breach of the Company’s own Disciplinary Policy.
The Employer did not attend the hearing. The Court regards it as regrettable that the Employer failed to avail of the opportunity to explain its version of the events giving rise to the claim.
Having considered the submission made on behalf of the Claimant, the Court is of the view that the disciplinary procedures adopted by the Company were inappropriate in the circumstances and were not carried out in accordance with Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000.
Therefore the Court recommends that the written warning issued on 11thMarch 2016 (which has since expired) should be expunged from the Claimant’s personnel file. Furthermore, having considered the points raised by the Union on behalf of the Claimant, the Court notes that it was normal practice until then for Maintenance staff to use their camera phones at work to record certain technical matters. Therefore, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that no disciplinary sanction was warranted and therefore the warning issued on 1stApril 2016 should also be removed and expunged from the Claimant’s personnel file.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd November 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.