ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013698
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Retail Sales person | A Retail Shop |
Representatives | Barbara Anderson Mandate Trade Union | Conor O'Gorman IBEC |
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-00017904-001 | 13/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath BL
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
Having confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and Having conducted the Investigation as described in Section 13, I, as the so appointed Adjudication Officer, am bound to make a recommendation which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.
Background:
The Complainant seeks to vacate a Disciplinary sanction imposed on him at the end of an Investigative, Disciplinary and Appeals process undertaken in the workplace. The verbal warning was imposed for six months from January 2018 and will expire in about a month. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was represented by a Union Representative. A booklet containing submissions was opened wherein the Complainant indicates that the internal processes were flawed and unfair having regard to the sanction of a verbal warning placed on his file for six months. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent believed it was bound to investigate two separate customer complaints that had been made in and around December 2017 and both of which alleged the Complainant was rude and/or abrupt with the customers contrary to the updated “Redesign policy” in particular and to general good customer relations practise in general. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant agreed that after twenty years of service he knew and understood the importance of common courtesy and I accept that he knows what is acceptable in terms of interacting with Customers. On balance I accept that no retail unit can afford to have sales assistants that are perceived to be rude by those with whom they come into contact. I accept that such complaints need to be recorded and monitored though it may not always be convenient to get a formal “statement” form a customer. In the event that these two complaints had been anonymous complaints, the Employer would be under no less of a burden to take them seriously. The Employer herein had the added statement from a Ms. K who is a colleague of the Complainant who confirmed an abruptness in manner which she herself had to smooth over when a customer was handed over to her by the Complainant following on from making a perfectly reasonable request to see wrapping paper. The Complainant recalled none of these events and therefore did not defend his actions and/or otherwise accept their validity. On balance I would have to accept that the complaints were made and they were valid and there was no mischief in them. I accept that an appropriate investigation was conducted and that the findings triggered the Disciplinary process and outcome.
|
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute
I recommend that the sanction of a six month verbal warning which was imposed in January 2018 should not be interfered with. |
Dated: 1st October, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath BL
Key Words:
|