Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Plumber

Public Body

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00014201-001

25/09/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00014201-002

25/09/2017

Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed.             Under the Industrial Relations Act, he contends that historical issues may have been considered when reaching the decision to dismiss him.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977:

On 19 October 2016 an incident took place at the Complainant’s workplace which led him to making an allegation against a contractor. However, the Respondent instead pursued the complainant for an allegation of assault and put him through procedures which it is argued were flawed and resulted in the Complainant’s unfair dismissal. A Manager Mr B, having put the Complainant on Administrative leave then was tasked with conducting the disciplinary process. He had been given a preliminary report by Manager Mr O. This, it is argued means the Manager had already notice of the allegation which would have prejudiced the outcome.   A formal investigation, to be conducted by Manager R was put in place by the Respondent. The Respondent would not accede to the Complainant’s union’s request for the actual complaint or the record of the investigatory meeting with the person who made the complaint.   It is submitted that it is a distinct breach of procedures and natural justice that the Complainant did not receive details of the complaint against him.   The Complainant and his union representative attended the investigation meeting on 8th November 2016 under protest because of the lack of information requested. On 15th November 2016 the HR Department gave the Complainant the account of the meeting between the Investigator and the person who made the complaint. This was the only account the Complainant received. The Union attempted to get information from the Investigator in order to prepare a defence, but was forbidden by the HR Department to contact the Investigator directly.   The investigation meeting with the Complainant was held on 18th November 2016.       The final report was issued in late December 2016 and in February 2017 the Complainant was called to a disciplinary meeting. It is argued that this runs contrary to the finding in the Investigation Report which concluded that this was a case of one person’s word against another and there was no independent evidence of any injuries to either party. The report concluded “Therefore it is not possible for me to determine if an assault actually took place”. The disciplinary meeting was convened and chaired by Manager Mr B on 13th April 2017. The allegations seemed to have multiplied, citing reckless breach of employee safety, health and welfare duties.   During the meeting, some 24 points were put by manager Mr B to the Complainant.   The detailed response to these points was sent to the Manager on 2nd May 2017, and the Manager replied that he was concluding the process on 19th May 2017 and inviting the Complainant and his union representative to attend on that date. The Complainant and his rep declined the invitation and sought the outcome by post. By 8th June when the final outcome had still not been received, the Union wrote to the Manager and the CEO advising that if they did not receive the outcome by 15th June 2017, the case would be referred to the WRC.   The letter of dismissal was received on 19th June 2017. An appeal was lodged but was unsuccessful.   It is argued that the process engaged by the respondent cannot be considered fair and equitable under codes of practice and employment legislation and resulted in the unfair dismissal of the Complainant.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977:

The Complainant was dismissed on foot of an investigation and disciplinary process into matters relating to an incident which occurred on 19th October 2016. The investigation and disciplinary process were invoked solely around these events and do not relate to any other matter.   The nature of the incident was serious and ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the Complainant for serious misconduct under its Disciplinary policy.   This followed a thorough procedure adhering to the Complainant’s entitlement to due process, his right of reply and his right to representation at every stage. It is submitted that it is not for the Adjudicator to re-investigate the events of 19th October 2016 but rather to determine whether the procedures adopted were fair, reasonable and in accordance with natural justice.

With regard to the Complainant’s assertion that Manager Mr B’s involvement was inappropriate and against the rules of natural justice and fair procedures, it is submitted that HR referred the issue of placing the Complainant on administrative pending investigation to Mr B who was one of only a number of individuals with the authority. He was not involved in the case at that stage and had no pre-determined opinion of the facts. In relation to the provision of statement of the person who was allegedly assaulted, the Complainant’s representative sought this prior to the investigation meeting held on 8th November 2016. The record of the meeting between the Investigator and the person was completed and agreed and sent to the Complainant’s representative on 15th November 2016.  The Complainant and his union representative attended a further meeting with the Investigator then on 18th November 2016 after they received a copy of the complaint. A full investigation took place followed by a Disciplinary meeting on 13th April 2017. It is submitted that this was not a ‘re-investigation’ as alleged by the Complainant’s representative, rather the Manager wished to review the information provided by the investigation and put it to the Complainant to provide him with the opportunity to respond.         The Complainant was dismissed following the disciplinary meeting and given the right to appeal.       He did appeal the decision but the decision to dismiss was upheld.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Although the original referral states that historical issues may have been considered when reaching the decision to dismiss the Complainant, at the hearing the Complainant, through his submission identified that there were “a number of historical issues which he continually raised and repeatedly found difficult to achieve a response regarding same”..and that he needs the opportunity to have these issues addressed.

The Respondent submits the following:

In relation to the Complainant’s assertion regarding a bullying complaint, this issue was pursued internally formally and was not upheld.

In relation to his works vehicle, after raising the issue with his supervisor he was subsequently allowed to bring it home.

In relation to mileage sheets, there is no protected disclosure on file. The issue was raised by the Complainant in 2015 but after an investigation, the matter was not pursued.

In relation to the gas pipe issue, this issue arose in September 2015, was reported by the Complainant in February 2016 and immediately rectified.

In relation to the Complainant’s role, it is submitted that his role was as Plumber and when the issue arose, in January 2016 it was addressed and clarified through various meetings and correspondence.

In relation to PDPs, the Complainant was treated no differently to other staff and at no time did he invoke the grievance procedure in regard to this matter.

In relation to LVP cards, the Complainant was treated no differently to other staff and at no time did he invoke the grievance procedure in regard to this matter.