ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005640

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/04/2017

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 stated that his case was in relation to a disciplinary sanction of First Written Warning imposed on him on the 25th May 2016 for alleged Unsatisfactory Conduct in relation to 2 matters

1. Intervening in clinical matters in phone call of the 22nd February 2016
2. Serious breach of insubordination when asked on several options to meet with management
3. The claimant had appealed this decision internally which was not upheld.

On the 1st March 2016 the claimant received a letter from the respondent dated the 26th February 2016 requesting him to attend a meeting on Thursday 3rd March at the respondent's headquarters. The claimant replied by letter dated the 2nd March confirming he was unable to attend this time as he was scheduled to work on the 3rd March.

The claimant received further letters from the Respondent on a number of dates and the claimant response was that he was unable to attend due to work commitments on the dates selected.

The respondent by correspondence dated the 26^th May confirmed that a disciplinary meeting was held on the 25th May in the claimant’s absence and the outcome was to issue him with the First Written Warning Notice. The claimant was also advised of details of the appeal procedure in the   correspondence.

The appeal hearing took place on the 11th August and the outcome was the warning would remain on the claimant's file for a period of 12 months.

The Union argued that the claimant was not made aware that the initial meeting was a disciplinary hearing and he was not made aware of the issue to be discussed.

The respondent had refused to hold the meeting at the claimant’s place of work. The appeal hearing commenced at 17.02pm and was completed at 17.07pm. The claimant was not provided with expenses for traveling to the respondents head office

The respondent for their part submitted that they had made all reasons attempts to facilitate the claimant to attend a meeting. It was also submitted that the because of the nature of the complaint and for privacy reasons it was not possible to give a copy or make a copy of the telephone conversation at issue.

Findings

Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing.

I find that the Respondent has every right to meet with the claimant. I find that the actions of both sides left a lot to be desired. I find that when the respondent was made aware that the claimant had work commitments, arrangements should have been put in place to facilitate him to attend. Equally, I find that the claimant should have made the respondent aware of his difficulties in good time and what he expected the respondent to have done which would have enabled him to attend the scheduled meeting.

I find that in this particular case and the sensitive nature of the issue the respondent was right to have the meeting at their head office, however, in this particular case, they should have allowed reasonable expenses to cover the claimants travelling expenses. I find that it would have been in the best interest of the claimant to try and establish the facts of the case at the time.

Recommendation

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

I find in the circumstances as outlined at the hearing that the first written warning should stand, however, it is to be expunged from the claimant’s file record from the date of this recommendation and cannot be used in any future case that may arise between the parties.

Dated:   29 September 2017

Key Words: