ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007912
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | General Operative | Public Body |
Representatives | Barry O'Donoghue Ferrys Solicitors | Brendan Hayden |
Complaint(s):
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-00010622-001 | 04/04/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] 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).
Background:
The Claimant is appealing a written warning and a transfer. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Claimant was employed as a store and worked for the Respondent for 12 years. In November 2016 the Claimant was involved in a row with a foreman in his depot. However prior to this in October 2015 he was assaulted by another foreman while working in the same depot. Following an investigation notwithstanding that he was a victim of the assault, blame was attributed to him for the incident. It was decided by the Respondent to transfer him to another depot and reduce his pay in his ‘best interests’. The Claimant refused to accept the transfer and reduced pay. Eventually, the Respondent relented on foot of correspondence from the Claimant’s solicitor and remained in situ. He was subject to [petty slights by other foreman after that and suffered from stress as a result. Details of the row that took place between the Claimant and the foreman were presented to the Hearing The verbal exchange that took between the parties was recorded by the Claimant unknowns to the foreman. As a result of this row the Claimant manager called him to a meeting in December but did not provide details of the agenda for this meeting. Details of the content of the meeting were presented to the Hearing. The Claimant received a letter from his manager in January 2017 informing him that he would be issued with a final written warning and would be transferred to another depot. It was contended that the procedure used by his manager was procedurally flawed. The manager acted as investigator and decision maker and had no regard for fair procedure. The Claimant appealed the decision. The appeal was heard in March but was confined to the severity of the sanction imposed. The result was a reduction to a written warning. The Claimant is seeking that the sanction be rescinded and he return to his position at his old depot and his financial losses be made good. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent confirmed the event of November 2016 between the Claimant and a foreman which were investigated by his manager. The HR department heard the appeal. The Claimant’s grounds for appeal were as follows; The decision to sanction him was a ’punishment’ for an assault on him by a foreman in October 2015 The procedure adopted by his manager was flawed, incompetent and unfair His manager misrepresented what happened in the incident on November 2016 No action was taken against the foreman Ongoing bullying by depot foremen throughout 2015 The HR appeal outcome concluded the following; There was no evidence to suggest that the decision to sanction was in retaliation for the events in October 2015 The disciplinary policy and procedure have been in place for many years. It is clear that the Claimant’s manager followed the correct procedure in investigating the incident and in making the decision. At the appeal the Claimant stated that he was not proud of his behaviour during the incident and sought to apologise to the foreman The decision not to take any action against the foreman has no bearing on the charges against the Claimant He was unable to give clear examples of ongoing bullying against him by the depot foremen The HR department considered the matters raised in the appeal and made the following decision; The final written warning be reduced to a written warning The decision to reassign him to another depot be upheld. |
Decision:
Section 41 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.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
I have considered the submissions of both parties. The recording of conversations unknowns to another party is not acceptable as evidence. I have considered the correspondence between all the parties. I accept that the sanction is based on a breach of Disciplinary Policy (i.e. insubordination and refusal to carry out a reasonable instruction of a Supervisor). I therefore accept the decision made by the HR department on appeal is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I do not find the claim well founded and it fails. |
Dated: 27th October 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Key Words:
Disciplinary sanction |