FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00011196
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00011196. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 10 May 2018 the Worker appealed the recommendation of the Adjudicator to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 June 2018. The following is the Decision of the Court:
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unreasonable and unfair to have imposed a permanent sanction on the worker as he continues to suffer the financial consequences of this sanction.
2. There is no impediment to the worker returning to his former position as the others who were directly involved in the incident that led to the disciplinary sanction have now retired.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Employer issued disciplinary sanctions to the worker following an investigation of a very serious workplace incident.
2. These sanctions were issued in line with Dublin City Council's Disciplinary Procedures and the worker did not appeal the sanctions at the time.
DECISION:
The Claimant in this case was disciplined by way of being issued with a written warning under the terms of the disciplinary procedure. In addition, the Claimant was, as part of the sanction imposed on him at that time, transferred out of the Parks Department to another Department within Dublin City Council. As a consequence of that relocation the Claimant has suffered a loss of income in the amount of circa €5000 per annum. Such a loss of income was not envisaged at the time of the transfer and was not intended to constitute an element of the sanction imposed on him.
Sanctions imposed on staff under the terms of the Disciplinary Procedure in force in Dublin City Council are time limited. A written warning has a lifespan of one year after which it is removed from a worker’s personnel file. In this case that element of the Disciplinary Procedure has been applied.
However, the decision to relocate the Complainant was taken as part of the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him. That decision, by parity of reasoning, must also be time limited and should be reversed after the 12 months have passed.
Finally, the transfer itself had the unintended consequence of imposing a further sanction on the Claimant that equally must also be time limited and can no longer be maintained.
Accordingly, the Court finds that all of the sanctions imposed on the Claimant are no longer sustainable. The Court further finds that the Council now has an obligation to end all sanctions that it imposed on him and to transfer him to a role within the Council that will restore his historic level of earnings. Should the Council choose not to return the Claimant to his original post in the Parks Department, it must choose another location that will restore his historic level of earnings and that does not impose unreasonable commuting requirements on him.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CC______________________
26 June 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.