Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A plant operator

A building supplies company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00014681-001

29/09/2017

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in April 2003.

In August 2017, the complainant was issued with a Final Written Warning, not having received any other formal warnings throughout his period of employment the Complainant is appealing the severity of the discipline imposed i.e. a Final Written Warning.

The Complainant’s representative put the following arguments forward in his defence:

There is acceptance that there had been some failings on the Complainant’s behalf however he believes that the issuing of a “Final Written Warning” for 12 months is excessive and unfair given that at the time of his meeting he had no warnings on his file and that he has 14 years’ service with the company.

The local operations manager brought a number of performance issues along with examples of failures to adhere to company policies to the attention of the Employee Relations Manager for the Group.

The Employee Relations Manager deemed it serious enough to warrant a Disciplinary Hearing that was held on 18th August 2017. The following issues were discussed:

1.       Failure regarding stockpiles

2.       Idle times of machines.

3.       Clock card incident.

4.       Failure to improve work activity following training

5.       Reading of newspapers.

At the hearing the Complainant was represented by his trade union official, the right to state his case and the right to cross examine any witnesses. The eventual outcome of the Disciplinary Hearing was the issue of a Final Written Warning.

The warning was appealed to the Operations Director on 17th September 2017 who rejected the appeal.

At hearing, it was established that the operation in which the Complainant is employed is what is known as “safety critical” and all employees are required to undergo extensive training in all aspects of the job. The Complainant has received extensive training in all aspects of the job.

It was established that the Complainant’s capability was not an issue, it was a question of application and how he went about performing the various tasks of the job.

It was also established at hearing that the complainant had been spoken to several times and counselled on what he was doing wrong and told informally that his performance was unacceptable and how this would have to improve.

I have considered this matter in detail and have concluded that the Respondent Company acted properly and that the issue of a Final Written Warning was merited.

The complaint fails.

Disciplinary Procedure.