ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005515

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/01/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney

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 final writing warning was issued was issued as a result of a complaint made by the Claimant’s line manager concerning his alleged behaviour towards her on 11 March. The Claimant believes he did not receive a fair hearing in the course of the investigation/disciplinary hearing.

THE Claimant’s representative cited clauses of the disciplinary procedure which he claimed were not implemented to achieve the objective of the procedure.

He stated that it was remarkable that an alleged one off exchange of words between the parties,

which the only witness, his team leader, did not describe as loud and aggressive could result in the

Claimant being

suspended for over five months and requiring three investigation hearings, two disciplinary

meetings and an internal appeal. All this took from 11 March until 13 October to complete.

He further criticised the manner of these investigations and claimed that there was a biased approached in dealing with the Claimant. He cited certain instances, which he claimed supported his claims.

Finally, he pointed out that the decision by the appeals officer to uphold the sanction was a further denial of fair procedure. In fact the officer chose to bring the warning forward by five months, which in effect meant he applied the warning before the investigation took place.

He is seeking to have the warning expunged.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent outlined the incident that took place between the Claimant and his line manager on 11 March. She felt his body language and tone of voice was threatening. When she asked him to calm down he became louder and more aggressive, so much so she had to walk away. She subsequently made a statement to senior management about incident.

The Respondent provided minutes of the meetings that took place during the investigation/disciplinary process. It is their position there was enough evidence provided in the line manager’s statement and the team leader’s to prove that the Claimant behaved in a threatening manner the line manager. In fact as a result of this incident, the line manager can no longer work on the same shift as the Claimant as she is afraid of him.

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.

I have considered the submissions of both parties. In regard to the delay in completing the investigation/disciplinary process I accept that this came about because of the previous incident with the Claimant resulted in most of his store manages being involved in the investigation/disciplinary process. Therefore to avoid any possible prejudice and to ensure a fair hearing; the Respondent had to appoint managers from different stores to hear the different stages of the procedures. This inevitably, led to a longer than usual process as it depended on the availability of staff. I have also considered the records of the meetings and correspondences provided by the parties and accept that it was open and fair at all the stages.

In regard to the statement made by the team leader; I regard it as a qualified statement and do not accept it as an endorsement to the Claimant’s assertions. I have also taken into account that the line manager in question has 13 years’ experience.

Finally, in dealing with the issue of bring the warning forward by five months; I find this to be in the Claimant’s favour. It also compensates for what was an unavoidable delay in dealing with this case to ensure of a fair hearing.

I do not find the Claimant’s case well founded and it fails.

Dated:   28 April 2017