ADJ-00005821

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A General Operative

A Food Manufacturing Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00008075-001

09/11/2016

The Complainant is employed as a General Operative since 16^th November 2005. She is paid €13.00 per hour and works full time. She has appealed the issue of a verbal warning.

The Complainant through no fault of her own, in a 9 month period had 42 days absence. This absence was certified. The Respondent unilaterally imposed a new criterion for dealing with absenteeism. Her absence could not be avoided and was certified. Her absence was not casual absenteeism of days here and there, or Mondays or Fridays. The criteria laid down by the company were not agreed by the union. This warning should not have been issued. There has been an inordinate delay in having this complaint heard. The warning has since expired however the Complainant is seeking that the issuing of the warning should never have happened. .

The Complainant was absent from work for a total of 42 days over a 9 month period, between 17^th June 2015 and 18^th March 2016. This absence is not in dispute. There were three reasons for this absence, stomach pain, back pain and shoulder pain. The Complainant attended the company’s Health Therapist. She was invited to a disciplinary investigation on 13^th April 2016. She was represented by her local union representative. She did not raise previous medical record. She also raised the matter of staff shortages but this had never been raised before. The outcome was that she was issued with a Verbal Warning. She was given the right of appeal, which she did on 9^th May 2016. The outcome was that the sanction was upheld.

The Respondent stated that they applied fair procedure and complied with SI 146/2000. Her contract of employment provided for the monitoring of absence. The Staff Handbook provides for action to deal with persistent sickness or frequent short absences. The Complainant was fully aware of their absence policy. They stated that the Complainant’s absence would have been encompassed by both the old and new set of criteria. The decision to issue a verbal warning was both substantively and procedurally fair. The verbal warning expired on 19^th October 2016. This complaint was presented to the Commission on 9^th November 2016. This claim is rejected.

I find that the facts relating to the absences are not in dispute.

I note that the Complainant has argued that all her absences were genuine and medically certified.

I find that the Respondent accepts that the absences were medically certified.

I find that the absences totalling 42 days in the 9 month period were in respect of three different reasons.

I note that the Complainant argued that a change of criteria led to her being issued with the verbal warning.

I have examined the criteria both old and new and find that the absence of 42 days in a 9 month period would have been encompassed by both the old and new criteria.

I find that it was reasonable for the Respondent to issue a verbal warning in respect of 42 days of absence in a 9 month period.

A verbal warning is the first step of the formal disciplinary procedure.

I find that the Respondent applied fair procedure throughout. The Complainant was aware of what she was accused of, she was given the right to defend herself, the right to be represented and the right of appeal.

I find no reason to change the sanction of verbal warning.

I note that the verbal warning has expired on 19^th October 2016.

I note that the verbal warning has been removed from the Complainant’s file.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.