LCR21838

• 
  “I would recommend that the Complainant accepts management’s proposal in relation to a return to work.

  In relation to the beard incident and being sent home I believe management could have managed this situation in a timelier manner and feel that sending him home without pay was a punitive action. Whilst it is not obvious how much the loss of earnings was I recommend a compensation payment to the Complainant of €2,500.

  Any other complaints, for various reasons, are inconclusive for a few reasons and I recommend that the Complainant moves on from these.

  In relation to holiday leave I recommend that the Complainant accepts the need for policy and procedure and adheres to this procedure.

  I believe that the most important aspect of this conclusion/recommendation is that the Complainant puts this behind him and focusses on getting back to work and accepts that management in their proposal are genuinely trying to help him. This can be helped by the Complainant’s trade union.”.

The Worker commenced work with the Employer in 2012. He has an unblemished record of employment and has received a number of awards for his service. In 2014 the Worker submitted a grievance to Management regarding issues he was having with his line Manager. An investigation of the grievance was carried out and a report was issued. The Worker was unhappy with the outcome of the report but did not pursue it further at that time. There then followed issues in relation to the Workers beard and on a number of occasions he was sent home as his manager did not consider it to be neat and tidy in line with the Company policy. The Worker was not paid on these occasions and therefore suffered a loss. The Worker’s mother wrote to the Employer setting out her concerns in relation to how her son was being treated by the Employer. This resulted in a number of meetings being held with the Worker and an Investigation Outcome report dated 1^stJuly 2016 was issued. The report was appealed by the Worker. However, some difficulties arose in terms of scheduling an appeal hearing culminating in a letter from the Employer to Worker advising that his failure to attend a meeting scheduled on 12^thOctober 2016 left the Employer with no option but to assume he did not want to pursue his appeal. The Union engaged with the Employer on the Workers behalf and the Employer agreed to proceed with an appeal hearing on the 19^thApril 2017. The worker was unhappy with the outcome of the appeal and requested that his case be referred to the WRC. The Worker has been absent on sick leave from the employment since September 2016.

In relation to the first grievance the Employer investigated same. There were no witnesses to the incident, but the Manager who was involved was spoken to about his management style. The Manager is no longer with the Company and therefore the worker will not have to work with him again. There then followed a number of grievances including ones relating to the Worker’s beard and the application of the Employer’s holiday policy. Each grievance was investigated. The grievance procedure among other findings concluded that the Worker’s beard did warrant management discussing same with him and that the fact that beard nets were not available at that point in time did make the issue more difficult to resolve. The Worker appealed the outcome and his letter of appeal stated that it was his view that he was suspended.

The appeal outcome held that at no stage was he suspended but repeated that beard nets should be available, confirmed that his rostered hours were in line with his contract, that there were no witnesses to any improper treatment by management and that his holidays were assigned in accordance with the policy as he did not respond to a request from his team leader in relation to holidays. The worker has been absent on sick leave since September 2016. The Employer has been actively seeking to engage with the worker to facilitate a normal return to work and has made repeated attempts to meet with the Worker and have him assessed by the Company Doctor/Occupational Physician but to no avail.

The Court having read the submissions of the parties and listened carefully to the oral submissions made at the hearing upholds the recommendation of the Adjudication Officer. The Worker should actively engage with the Employer in relation to his return to work and should follow the Employer’s policy in relation to holidays. The Employer should pay the Worker the sum of €2,500 compensation in recognition of the fact that the “Beard” issue could have handled in a timelier fashion.

The Court so Recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
MK______________________
29 NovemberDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.