FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER LINGUS LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No(S) ADJ-00010334 CA-00013716-001
BACKGROUND:
2. On 29 June 2018, the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
"I have considered all the evidence both verbal and written presented at this hearing.
I have decided that this complaint is not well founded for the above stated reasons.
I note that no disciplinary investigation whatsoever has ever been contemplated by the Respondent and they considered the matter closed.
I have decided that this claim fails.
I recommend that the Complainant now accepts that this should conclude the matter that has gone on for four years and to embrace the rest of her life."
The Worker appealed the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer on 9 August 2018. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 October 2018.
DECISION:
Background to the Appeal
This is the Worker’s appeal against a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (bearing reference number ADJ-000010334 and dated 29 June 2018) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Court received the Worker’s Notice of Appeal on 9 August 2018. It heard the appeal in Dublin on 10 October 2018.
The Worker is employed as a member of Aer Lingus (‘the Company’) check-in staff at Dublin Airport. Her job title is Guest Services Agent. The within proceedings originated from an incident that occurred with a passenger whom the Worker was checking in for a flight to Zurich on 27 January 2014. The passenger had a one-way ticket only. The Worker alleges that the passenger became aggressive towards her when she requested him to produce documentary evidence of his entitlement to reside in Switzerland. The passenger was travelling on an Irish passport and it was the Worker’s understanding - having checked the Company’s TIMATIC database - that he was, therefore, required to be in possession of a residence permit if he intended to remain in Switzerland for a period longer than three months. The Worker submits that she consulted a colleague in relation to the issue and her colleague advised she should speak to her supervisor. The Worker said that a Supervisor happened to be passing by her desk and she consulted with her but that when she attempted to speak with the passenger again he became irate and aggressive towards her and this caused her to speak to an Airport Police Officer. She says she then removed herself to the break room as she was quite distressed. The Duty Manager then spoke to her and requested that she submit a written report in relation to the incident. The Worker informed the Court that she filed a report by email later that day.
The Worker submits that Management did not display any concern for her well-being on the day in question as they were more concerned about the passenger. As a result, the Company had neglected its duty of care to her. The Worker subsequently submitted a grievance arising from the incident with the passenger. She is of the opinion that the incident was not properly investigated by the Company and, therefore, does not accept the outcome of the grievance process. She is seeking an apology from her Managers.
The Company submits that the Worker departed from Company procedure and protocol on 27 January 2014 by failing to escalate the issue that arisen with the passenger to her Supervisor and choosing instead to consult with her colleagues. The Duty Manager was called to the check-in desk by a Supervisor. She made arrangements to diffuse the situation and to facilitate the passenger’s entry to the boarding gate and his onward journey to Zurich. The Company further submits that the Complainant did not file a written report of the incident as directed but instead sent in a written grievance later that day. The grievance was investigated. The Worker was unhappy with the outcome and exercised her right of appeal. The outcome of the appeal was that some omissions had been made in the course of the initial investigation and a fresh investigation was recommended. That took place and again the Worker chose to appeal the outcome. The Worker’s grievance was not upheld.
The Company further submits that the Worker had not correctly understood or applied the information on the Company’s TIMATIC system in relation to visa requirements for passengers travelling on a valid Irish passport to Switzerland. Such passengers are not required to have an entry visa or a return ticket. Nevertheless, the Company submits, if the Worker had some doubts about the passenger’s eligibility to travel and/or his behaviour the correct protocol was to escalate the matter to her Supervisor which she failed to do on the day. The Company denies that the Supervisor or Manager failed to support the Worker during the incident on 27 January 2014. It submits that the grievance procedure established that both the Supervisor and Duty Manager had intervened appropriately to diffuse the situation quickly and professionally and had gone to find the Worker who had left the area without notifying anybody. No disciplinary action was contemplated by the Company against the Worker arising from the incident in question.
Recommendation
The Court finds that the Worker’s complaints are not well-founded. Nothing has been presented to the Court that substantiates the Worker’s allegation that the Company neglected its duty of care to her. The situation that developed with the passenger on 27 January 2014 was exacerbated by the Worker’s apparent failure to comply with the Company’s protocols in respect of which she had received extensive training. The Court finds that the Worker’s grievance was comprehensively and fairly considered by the Company.
The Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation is upheld and the appeal fails.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
15 November 2018______________________
THDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.