ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008355

Complaint(s):

ActComplaint/Dispute Reference No.Date of Receipt Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 CA-00011120-001 03/05/2017   Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/11/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and 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).      

Industrial Relations Act 1991

CA-00011120-001

ISSUE

The claimant is appealing the decision by the respondent to issue her with a verbal warning

Background

  The claimant works as the payroll and Superannuation Officer. The claimant has to deal with approximately four hundred and twenty employees. The claimant follows the protocol as set down by the respondent. The claimant feels she is being single out for unfair treatment coincide with the foregoing the claimant works from the Leave Policy concerning payment of sick pay. An employee was not paid for a period of sick leave as the claimant had not received a sick certificate to cover that period of leave. This along with five other employees who were not paid for sick leave in the same period. One of the employees contacted the claimant why she had not been paid. The claimant submitted that the informed the person that she did not receive a sick certificate. Consequently, it transpired that the HR Manager had received the sick certificate but he had failed to pass it onto to payroll for their attention. Nevertheless, a bank transfer was processed on that day so the employee would be paid. It was submitted that the respondent was incensed at the non-payment of sick pay to the employee as a result they issued the claimant with a verbal warning. The union argued that there was a total miscarriage of justice. The evidence supporting same is set down in the leave policy which the claimant had complied fully with. The Union is seeking that there is no justification for issuing the verbal warning and therefore must be retracted and rescinded from the date of implementation The respondent submitted that the claimant’s job description makes it clear that her role is to liaise with Department heads and the HR Manager regarding pay related matters. This she did not do in this case of the complainant. Had she done this, she would have learned that the HR manager was in receipt of the medical certificate and was absent on sick leave The respondent disputed the claimants evidence that she was acting in accordance with the payroll policy was felt that this policy wasn’t strictly applied It was submitted that the claimant was working next door to the complainant and was required to interact with the HR team as part of her normal duties, the claimant's assertion that she was unaware of the complainant absence from work was not accepted by the investigator. The respondent submitted that taking all matters into account the issue of the verbal warning was justified in the circumstances  

Findings

  Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing. I find that the claimant commenced employment with the respondent on the 25th April 2005. I find based on the submissions that this is the first time a case of this nature occurred. I find there is a conflict of evidence about the application of the Leave policy. I find that the level of communication leaves a lot to be desired especially when the parties are working in offices next to each other. I find that the claimant should have known that her colleague was absent from work and I find that she should have asked if a medical certificate was received. I also find that the HR manager should have passed on the cert to the payroll when it was received. I find that the employee that submitted a medical certified should not have penalised by not having her wages paid, even though it was paid shortly afterwards. This situation should never have arisen. I fail to understand why the phone was not lifted to ask if a medical certificate had been received from the employee so sick leave could be paid. Especially when employees are working in close proximately to one another. I find that the verbal warning expired on the 10th September 2017

Recommendation

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. A. The Policy on Leave is clarified and fully understood. B .The application of the policy is a matter for Department Heads C. The fact the warning has expired I see no benefit in keeping it on file and it should be removed.  

Dated:   18/01/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell