ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003814

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/01/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, 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).

1:        Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

2:        Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant was dismissed for Gross Misconduct arising from an incident on the 5^th May 2016.

The incident was investigated (by HR - Ms. KP and Security Managers - Mr. TR) on the 11^th May 2016 – proper procedures were followed and the Complainant was represented.

A Disciplinary Hearing (with Mr. DH –Senior Manager) was held on the 25th May 2016 and the decision to dismiss was confirmed by letter of the 1st June 2016.

An Appeal Hearing was held on the 15^th June 2016 (The Company Head of HR (Mr. SD) was the Chairman.

At all times the Compliant was represented by a SIPTU Official.

At no stage during the proceedings did the Complainant furnish a satisfactory explanation for the incident on the 5^th May 2016.

The incident was not denied at any stage.

Precedents were quoted regarding the function of the Adjudicator or EAT not being to investigate the incident involved but to decide if the decision to Dismiss was appropriate and in keeping with the actions of a “Reasonable Employer”

3:        Decision:

Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

4:        Issues for Decision:

Did an Unfair Dismissal take place and were all proper procedures followed?

Did the process follow the rules of Natural Justice and were they in keeping with S.I. 146 of 2000 – Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

5:        Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 and S.I. 146 of 2000 – Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

6:        Decision:

The Complainant was employed as a Security Officer at a major Logistics Site. Detailed procedures were in place involving the movement of goods vehicles on to and off the site. It was not denied that the Complainant failed to observe these procedures on the 5^th May 2016.

Extensive oral evidence was given by Respondent Managers in regard to the need for the procedures and the implications involved in a breach of same.

The Complainant had been posted to the site following an incident at another site two months earlier following which he had received a final written warning. He had chosen not to appeal this warning.

It was clear that the requirements of S.I. No 146 of 2000 had been complied with – all correspondence was in order and rights to representation by a SIPTU Official were afforded at all times.

The Respondent has well documented Procedures and Handbooks.

Detailed minutes of meetings were taken and exhibited to the Adjudicator.

The Complainant had been fully trained for his duties at the site. Documentary evidence was exhibited of Training records.

It became clear during the hearing and cross examination that a similar incident had happened two weeks previously. A colleague had informally warned the Complainant about the serious nature of the breach of procedures but had let it rest out of friendship. This colleague did not give direct evidence but the Complainant was, in my view, clearly aware that the conversation as described had happened.

In addition it was clear that the Complainant was a very experienced Security Officer of many years experience and would have been clearly well aware of the critical importance of Vehicle control procedures at a Logistics site.

In summary there was no way that the Complainant could not have been aware of the serious nature of his actions on the 5^th May and their likely consequences.

Direct oral evidence was given by the Decision Maker at the Appeal Hearing – Mr. SD. It was clear that a detailed Appeal had taken place. Full opportunities were afforded to the Complainant and to SIPTU to present their case. The decision to Dismiss as opposed to a lesser sanction such as Relocation to a “Back Water” site was explored by the Adjudicator. The overwhelming Breach of Trust in a Security Officer arising from the incident of the 5^th May was the principal argument against any lesser sanction. The fact that the Complainant had a live final written warning on his file had not been a major factor in his mind.

The witnesses were open to cross examination by the SIPTU Official.

Accordingly and having taken all the evidence into account, both written and oral into account, I came to the view that all Fair Procedures had been followed. The Dismissal for Gross Misconduct, particularly in a Security context, had been a Reasonable outcome.

The claim for Unfair Dismissal is dismissed.

Dated:   30 March 2017