LCR21562

An employee made a complaint to Management that another employee threatened him in the course of his work. Following an investigation the Council decided that the Complaint was well founded and imposed a severe sanction on the Claimant. That finding and sanction was upheld following an internal appeal process within the City Council.

The claimant appealed against the finding that he issued a threat to another employee, against the sanction imposed and against the procedure employed by the Council in arriving at its decisions in this case.

When the Council refused to agree to the matter being heard by an Adjudication Officer under the Industrial Relations Acts, the Claimant referred the matter to this Court under section 20(1) of the Act.

The Council attended at and made submissions to the hearing conducted into the matter that was conducted by the Court.

In the course of that hearing it emerged that:-

• 
  1.The Council decision maker took material into consideration when making his decisions that was not put in evidence by either party in the course of the investigation and on which the Claimant was not given an opportunity to make submissions.

  2.The rules of natural justice had not been complied with in this case.

  3.The standards of procedure applied in this case fell short of those required in a case in which grave allegations of threats against a work colleague are being made.

  4.In the course of the hearing the Court was told that the “decision maker” had no right to make such a decision and that the letter constituted no more than a “recommendation”. Accordingly the status of the letter and its contents was misleading for the Claimant and misrepresented the true status of the findings and outcome of the investigation and disciplinary procedure.

  5.The investigation into the Complaint and the disciplinary procedure arising out of the findings of the investigation appear to have been confused with one another. Accordingly the Complainant was not given an opportunity to make any case on the disciplinary implications of the finding of the investigation.

  6.The Council admitted that it treated the Complainant differently to other employees in that it refused to engage in the normal industrial dispute resolution procedures in this case because of the Claimant’s history of bringing grievances to the Labour Court.

  Accordingly the Court finds that the procedure that was followed in this case fell considerably below the standards of natural justice that should inform all such proceedings. Therefore the Court finds that the outcome of that procedure cannot stand and should be set aside.

  The Court further finds that the complaint of threatening behaviour should now be investigated de novo by an independent person who has had no involvement in the matter to date. All staff that have had any involvement in the investigation should be removed from this process and should have no further dealings with the matter.

  After the investigation has been completed the Council should decide whether any matter falls to be dealt with under the disciplinary procedures. Should it decide to bring charges under that procedure the Claimant should be notified of the charges and provided with all relevant information grounding the charge and invited to make submissions on the matter through his chosen representatives.

  Any appeal that arises thereafter should be addressed in the normal way including any appeal under the industrial relations procedures to an agency of the state including the WRC and the labour Court.

  The Court so recommends.