FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL BRENNAN B.L. INSTRUCTED BY B.J. O' BEIRNE & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No. R-153270-IR-15/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 8 February 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- It is my recommendation that as noted the suspension without pay has been rescinded and the period when he was on reduced hours effecting a reduction which I believe to be a figure in excess of €500.00 should also be reimbursed and passed through his wages in due course.
It is my recommendation that the final written warning remains in position and his work as a customer assistant in Arklow also continues but it is to be noted on file that there is no detrimental aspersions cast upon his status or name in relation to the matters that have now been concluded.
The Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 16 March 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13 April 2017.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of an Employee against an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation which held that the final written warning given to him should remain in place and his work as a Customer Assistant in Arklow should continue. However, he recommended that there should be no detrimental aspersions cast upon the Claimants’ status or name in relation to matters that have now concluded. Furthermore, it recommended payment of €500 to compensate the Claimant when he was required to work reduced hours of work as part of the sanctions imposed on him.
The Claimant, who was represented by legal Counsel, submitted that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him on 7thNovember 2014, following an investigation into a customer complaint made about him, were excessive and inappropriate.
The Company defended its position and held that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the Claimant were appropriate in the circumstances where it was found that he was in breach of the Company’s policies. It held that there was a clear breach of the Serious Misconduct and Internet Use and Social Media policies as his conduct brought the Company’s good name into disrepute.
Extensive oral and written submissions were presented by both sides and the Court has carefully considered these in making its findings in this case. The Court notes that the Claimant admitted to the actions complained of by the customer; he was represented at all meetings held to investigate the matter; the actions of the Claimant whether intentional or otherwise had the potential and did cause damage to the Company’s reputation and the Company had a responsibility to alleviate that damage to the best of its ability.
The Court is satisfied that the investigation procedures were correctly carried out by the Company and in all the circumstances the Court concurs with the findings and Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer and upholds his Recommendation. Therefore the appeal fails.
The Court notes the Company’s assurances and confirmation that the sanctions applied to the Claimant will not act as a detriment to any future applications for positions he may decide to apply for.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
27 April 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.