ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013694
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A fitter | An automotive component supplier |
Representatives | self | Local management |
Complaint(s):
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-00018034-001 | 18/03/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00018034-002 | 18/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The complaint referred under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 – 2015 was withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing. The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a master fitter on 21/10/2016. His rate of pay is €448.50 per 39-hour week. The Complainant received a verbal warning on 31/01/2018 and unsuccessfully appealed this warning on 12/02/2018. He lodged a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ON 18/03/2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was issued with a Verbal Warning which he appealed because he felt it was unfair as any absenteeism he had was covered by medical certification stating that he was ill on the days absent, he points out that he was genuinely ill. The Complainant maintains that all absenteeism is measured in the calendar year and that absences in February 2018 should not be counted with absences in 2017. The Complainant accepts that he received both the Staff Handbook and Terms of Employment (Information) Act statement (his contract). He does not accept that he received the document titled ‘Managing Attendance’ policy. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
In February 2017 the Complainant, after an absence of five days, was informed that his attendance at work needed to improve or it may lead to a disciplinary sanction. On 31st January 2018 the Complainant attended a disciplinary hearing with his depot manager and was placed on a verbal warning due to his unacceptable level of absenteeism over the previous 12 month rolling period. During this period the Complainant had missed a total of 33.5 days over 6 different periods of absenteeism. The Complainant appealed the issue of this warning and his appeal hearing took place on 09/02/2018. The outcome of the appeal was that the Complainant was unsuccessful in his appeal. The Complainant’s manager had conducted numerous return to work interviews with the Complainant and at no stage was informed of any consistent reasons for his absenteeism or any other medical concerns. The Respondent’s disciplinary policy clearly states a reason that may be considered misconduct is “Failure to meet performance requirements, either in attendance, time-keeping, accuracy or productivity”. The Complainant received a copy of the disciplinary procedure at induction and signed to confirm this on 21/10/2016, he was re-issued with a copy of this procedure prior to his disciplinary hearing. Company position. 1. The Complainant was placed on a disciplinary sanction as his absenteeism levels were unacceptable and he had been informed on numerous occasions by his manager prior to reaching the disciplinary hearing stage. 2. The company does not dispute the medical certificates provided. 3. The Complainant was treated fairly in line with company policies. 4. The Complainant has not made the Company aware of any disability he has. 5. The Verbal Warning issued to the Complainant expired on 30/07/2018. 6. There was no loss to the Complainant as a result of him being issued with a Verbal Warning. 7. The Complainant has contributed entirely to the issue of a Verbal Warning. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Regularity of attendance is a basic employee responsibility and is an implied employee obligation. In this instant case there appears to be no mitigating circumstances and the Complainant’s attendance record at work leaves room for improvement. Medical certification may explain why an employee is absent from work – it does not excuse it. The Respondent’s in this case tried to correct the Complainant’s attendance record prior to any disciplinary sanction taking place. There appears to be an element of confusion with the Complainant and I do believe that he does not understand the concept of a ‘rolling 12 months’ – perhaps the complainant and possibly his colleagues need some refresher training in this area. I believe that management have acted correctly in this case and it is for this reason that I believe that the complaint must fail and the issue of a disciplinary warning was the correct course of action by management. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons set out above the complaint fails. |
Dated: October 2nd 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Disciplinary procedures. Attendance at work. |