ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001474
Dispute for Resolution:
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-00002087-001 | 21/01/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/11/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, and section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Attendance at Hearing:
Parties | Complainant | Respondent |
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant seeks to have a six week period of sick leave set aside and classed as a work related injury. He submits that he was subjected to an unfounded allegation and that the resultant period of sick leave which he was on due to stress should be set aside in the context of calculating his further entitlements to both full and half pay should a further period of sick leave arise. The complainant has been in the employment since 1979. In February 2015, an allegation was made against him that he was under the influence of alcohol. Both the complainant and his work colleague disputed this accusation and following that they went on an emergency call. The complainant felt distraught that such an accusation should be made by a colleague and he went home sick. The complainant went to his GP who certified him sick due to work related stress. The respondent contacted the complainant and advised that the allegation was unsubstantiated. In April 2015, the complainant returned to work and submitted a grievance citing loss of earnings and seeking for his sick days to be reclassified. In June 2015, the employer wrote to the complainant advising him that his grievance was not upheld. The issue was further appealed but remained unresolved and the complainant now seeks restoration of the days and compensation for loss of earnings. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
Whilst on duty on 22nd February 2015, an allegation was made by a colleague against the complainant which resulted in him leaving the premises without permission or approval, subsequently reporting sickness. The allegation related to the complainant potentially smelling of / under the influence of alcohol, which is a very serious allegation. At the time of the complainant leaving without permission, he was aware that a Manager was en route to his station in an attempt to deal with the situation. The complainant went on a period of sick leave from then until 6th April 2015 during which he received the benefits of the sick leave scheme. The complainant initiated the grievance procedure on his return and his grievance was not upheld. In a report dated 3rd June 2015, the manager designated to hear his grievance found that the complainant had been afforded every opportunity to remain on site in order to exonerate himself but had failed to do so. It is agreed that the appeal (Stage 2)was not processed but management upon reflection believe in essence the grievance would not have been upheld. The respondent accepts that the Adjudication is now in fact the final stage of the grievance process as allowed for in the relevant policy. The respondent’s position is that the complainant left the premises without permission or approval at a time when management quickly made arrangements for a manager to go directly to the complainant’s workplace. The manager would meet with the complainant in order to deal with the allegation in a timely manner which would either confirm if the allegation was correct or vexatious in nature. The complainant was informed that a manager would be on site within 40 minutes and he was requested to remain at the site. Instead, he went home without permission or authority to do so. The catalyst for the complainant’s problems therefore relate to his actions on that day which upon retrospective review would appear to more appropriately fall under the disciplinary policy and would have instigated a disciplinary investigation. Management however, did not withhold the discretionary benefits of the sick leave scheme and events overtook the potential instigation of disciplinary action. It is also submitted that the request of the complainant to have the sick leave period re-classified is not appropriate, as under the rules set out in DOHC Circular 5/2014, do not allow for the complainant to effectively have the slate cleaned.
Recommendation:
I note that the respondent did not have the opportunity to carry out an immediate investigation into the very serious allegation made against the complainant as the complainant left his workplace. In that sense he contributed to the situation in which he found himself. I note that the respondent failed to finalise the stages of the grievance procedures. Given the fact that more than eighteen months have elapsed since the allegation was made, I recommend that the respondent confirm in writing to the complainant that the matter is now closed. In relation to the complainant’s claim for restoration of the six weeks leave, or re-classification and compensation, having reviewed the policies and procedures governing sick leave in the employment, I cannot recommend in his favour.
Dated: 08 March 2017