FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PARKER HANNIFIN MANUFACTURING LTD (REPRESENTED BY EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Written Warning.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Union's appeal of a sanction imposed on its member following a workplace incident which resulted in an injury to the Worker. It is the Union's claim that the final written warning issued to the Worker was disproportionate in all the circumstances surrounding the incident. Following the occurrence of the incident, the Worker was suspended with pay pending the outcome of an internal investigation and subsequent disciplinary hearing which resulted in the issuing of a final written warning to be placed on the Worker's personnel file for a period of eighteen months. The Worker appealed the sanction however Management took the decision to uphold the sanction.
On the 21st February 2018, the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th May, 2018. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the Employer's disciplinary process was greatly flawed in this situation.
2. The Union asserts that the findings made by the Employer should have no standing.
3. The Union is seeking the immediate removal of the warning from the Worker's records.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that the matter was investigated fully in line with its disciplinary procedures.
2. The Worker was treated in an equitable manner at all times.
3. The Worker was disciplined in accordance with the terms of the Company/Union Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim by a worker who disputes a final written warning issued to him on 2ndAugust 2017 which is due to expire after 18 months. The Union on behalf of the Claimant submitted that the warning was unjustified in the circumstances and that the management’s procedures in issuing that warning were seriously flawed.
Management stated that the warning was given to the Claimant in circumstances where the Claimant had breached safety procedures leading to an injury to his finger.
The Court has considered the extensive submissions made and the accompanying documentation presented by both sides. Having considered the oral and written submissions made the Court is of the view that in overriding the safety system the Claimant breached the Company’s health and safety rules, and he did so without being supervised. However, the Court accepts his argument that he did not do so maliciously and he did not foresee the dangers involved. The Court accepts that in the circumstances where health and safety is such an important feature of the Company’s business that disciplinary action was appropriate.
The Court notes that the agreed Company/Union Disciplinary Procedures provides that a final written warning will expire after a period of 18 months, however, in issuing the warning to the Claimant, the manager involved told the Court that he was under the mistaken impression that it would expire after 12 months.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the final written warning issued to the Claimant should expire after 12 months, i.e. on 1stAugust 2018. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the warning should be expunged from the Claimant’s file and not referred to again.
The Court notes that the Claimant was placed on suspension with pay while an investigation took place into the incident which led to his accident. Such a provision was allowed for in the agreed procedures, however, the Claimant was on sick leave and on annual leave during the suspended period. The Court is of the view that his entitlement to annual leave was compromised in that situation and accordingly he should be compensated by returning those days of annual leave to his entitlement for the leave year.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th June 2018______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.