Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Driver

Transport Company

Dispute under Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

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-00016011-001

27/11/2017

The Complainant has been employed from February 1999 as a Driver. He is paid €670.00 per week and he works 40 hours a week. A Dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 27th November 2017 concerning a sanction of a Final Written Warning.

The Complainant has been employed as a Driver since 1999. On 29th May 2017 he received an invitation to an investigation meeting in respect of a number of issues – unacceptable attitude – behaviour and performance. The invitation was signed by a named Supervisor which SIPTU asserted was the complainant in relation to the second and third allegations. The investigation meeting took place on 31st May 2017 and was chaired by the named Supervisor. The Complainant was provided with a copy of an email by a named Manager in relation to the first incident but he received no documents in relation to the other two complaints. The investigation Report was completed on 21st June 2017. It outlined the outcome in relation to the three complaints and he was called to a Disciplinary Meeting and was informed this may lead to Disciplinary sanction.

The Disciplinary Hearing took place on 23rd June 2017 and was chaired by the named Area Operations Manager. He received the outcome on 27th July 2017, this was following a “check ride” of the Complainant’s route which was done on 6th July 2017 in relation to the performance issues. He was given a final written warning for his attitude, use of inappropriate language and performance. He was afforded a right of appeal and did so and this took place on 18th August 2017 and chaired by the Operations Director which upheld the warning. The issue was referred to the WRC.

SIPTU, on behalf of the Complainant asserted – there was a delay in the investigation between 11th April 2017 and 29th May 2017 – he should not have been disciplined for two of the allegations namely the issue of the spare spanner and performance while he did admit he had said the words (inappropriate language) and he suggested the Complainant was investigated because he wanted to make a complaint against his named Supervisor. (This was unspecified). SIPTU also alleged the Respondent did not apply fair procedures – the Supervisor who conducted the investigation decided in his report that a Disciplinary Hearing was required and this was scheduled in his report - The Supervisor was the Complainant in relation to the second and third complaints – the same person from HR was involved at both the Investigation and the Disciplinary Hearings as a Notetaker – he was not given any documents in relation to his productivity on which the Company made their decision – the investigation was initiated prior to the check rides of 8/6/2017 and 6/7/2017 and the allegations were not specific.

The Complainant and his SIPTU Representative also referenced a number of Decisions in relation to fair procedures.

The Complainant is employed as a Courier Driver with the Respondent involved in the collection and delivery of packages and parcels to businesses, private residences and workplaces etc. On 11th April 2017 the Complainant attempted to use a scanner which had not been allocated to him and he was so advised by his Supervisor, named. Scanners are assigned to individual members of staff and are only allowed to use scanners assigned to them and they receive training in the use and procedures of scanners. He was called to the office of the Supervisor to discuss informally this breach of process. The Complainant became very angry, stormed of his Supervisor’s office and shouted inappropriate language (stated) as he left.

During this same period concerns arose in relation to the Complainant’s productivity and was below what could reasonably be expected in an 10 hour day and he was spoken to informally on a number of occasions. A further incident occurred on3rd/4th May 2017 when he refused to be assigned a spare spanner in order for him to have one at hand the following morning and there were a number of shipments left by the Complainant in the warehouses a result and when questioned his response was he was delayed by not having a scanner.

Another named Supervisor wrote to the Complainant on 29th May 2017 requesting him to attend an investigation meeting on 31st May 2017 and three allegations were included in this letter. He was informed of his right to representation and that the outcome could be the convening of a disciplinary hearing. The investigation meeting took place on 31st May 2017 with the Investigator, named, the Complainant, his SIPTU Representative and a notetaker from HR, Named. The Complainant confirmed his use of the inappropriate language but his defence was he thought nobody had heard him. In relation to the second allegation, namely his productivity, he suggested this was due to speed limits, collecting as well as delivering and not having his own scanner. It was confirmed to him that he should ensure he had his scanner each evening for the following morning and that the procedure was that pre-12 deliveries should be taken out as a priority. As part of the investigation the Complainant completed a “check ride” on 8th June 2017 with his operations supervisor, named, as a result it was found his productivity should have been higher.

He was issued with the outcome by letter dated 21st June 2017 which also found there was sufficient substance to proceed to the disciplinary stage. He was invited to attend a Disciplinary Hearing on 23rd June 2017 and was informed of the allegations and his right to representation. This took place on 23rd June 2017 attended by the Area Operations Manager, Employee Representative and a notetaker from HR. At this meeting the Complainant sought higher SIPTU Representation and the meeting was adjourned to facilitate this. Following discussion with his SIPTYU Representative he returned to the meeting stating he was happy to proceed. At this meeting a second “check ride” was arranged on 6th July 2017. The outcome was issued to the Complainant with a Final Written Warning and a right of appeal. The Complainant appealed and this was heard by the Operations Director on 18th August 2017. The outcome was to uphold the sanction.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant was afforded all fair procedures in line with Company established policy – the LRC Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146/2000) and the universal principles of natural justice, namely, informed of the allegations – allowed several opportunities to present his case – informed of the outcomes of the investigation, disciplinary and appeals – provided with all relevant material – afforded the right to representation and afforded the right to appeal.

On the basis of the evidence and extensive written submissions from both Parties, including all supporting documentation I find as follows -

It is not the role of the Adjudication Officer to investigate the allegations that led to the disciplinary sanction but rather to consider if the actions of the Respondent were reasonable in all the circumstances and if the Complainant had been afforded all fair procedures in relation to the investigation, disciplinary and appeals processes.

On the basis of the evidence I find that the Complainant was informed of the three allegations against him, namely that he used inappropriate language to his supervisor which he confirmed – that he had refused to take a scanner when told to do so by his Supervisor resulting in delays which he confirmed and the Complainant was afforded two “check rides” to establish his performance and productivity.

I therefore do not find in favour of the Complainant in relation to this dispute.

On the basis of the evidence, written submissions and my findings above and in accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, I do not find in favour of the Complainant in relation to this dispute.

Dispute – Final Written Warning – Respondent applied all fair procedures – Did not uphold the Complainant’s referral