ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008897

 Anonymised PartiesAn Airline employeeAn Airline  

Complaint:

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-00011123-001 04/05/2017   Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/10/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.  

Background:

The worker is employed as a Team Member Grade C loader. He has been employed on his current contract since 2009. His gross weekly pay is €1250. The dispute relates to a disciplinary sanction imposed as a result of an investigation into the worker’s level of absenteeism.

Summary of Worker’s Case:

The worker contends that the employer placed him on a Scheme II sanction on the Company’s sick leave policy following its investigation into his level of absence. The worker contends that this is unfair as the absence in question was a reoccurrence of an occupational injury. The worker contends that he first injured himself at work while wheeling a cart on uneven ground. This injury resulted in a period of absence from work and a further absence due to a reoccurrence of the injury shortly afterwards. The worker contends that the employer did not allow him to review the CCTV footage of the incident which he claims would have proved that the injury was occupational in nature and was witnessed by a number of people. The worker contends that there were two periods of absence from work as a direct result of that incident. The worker’s position is that he was denied natural justice and fair procedures as a result of the employer’s actions. The worker is seeking that the sanction be removed.  

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer contends that the worker was placed on Scheme II of the sick leave policy as a result of his level of absence. The sanction results in a loss of sickness benefit while absent from work due to sick leave. The employer contends that its sick leave policy provides that more than four occasions or 12 days of absence in a rolling 12-month period will be investigated. The employer contends that in this case the worker had six occasions totalling 23 day days of absence. The employer confirmed that the CCTV footage had been examined as part of the investigative process but that it did not show any injury occurring or any witnesses in the vicinity as claimed by the worker. It was not possible to show the worker the CCTV subsequently as it had been accidentally erased. The Respondent does not accept that the injury was occupational in nature. The employer contends that the worker has had another two further occasions amounting to 19 days of absence since the imposition of the disciplinary sanction in March 2017. The employer contends that over a rolling four-year period from 2013-2017, the worker has been absent from work in excess of 190 days. The employer contends that it acted in line with its sick leave policy in dealing with this matter. The employer contends that the 12 month sanction it imposed is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.  

Findings and Conclusions:

I find that the worker has been absent from work on six occasions totalling 23 days in a rolling 12-month period. I find that the level of absence warranted an investigation in line with the Company’s sick leave policy. I find that the employer placed the worker on a Scheme II sanction of the sick leave policy which results in a loss of sickness benefit while absent on sick leave. I find that in the circumstances, the employer acted reasonably and in compliance with its sick leave policy.    

Recommendation:

  Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. Having considered the submissions of both parties and the facts adduced at the adjudication hearing, I find that the employer has acted fair and reasonably in all the circumstances of this dispute. Accordingly, I do not recommend in favour of the worker’s claim.   Dated:   15.01.2018  Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey Key Words: Sick leave policy, disciplinary sanction, natural justice, fair procedures.