Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Sales Representative

Manufacturing 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-00019707-001

11/06/2018

The Complainant disputes a disciplinary sanction of a final written warning.

The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent since 2010. His role as Sales Representative involves travelling around rural parts of the county calling on farmers collecting payments and settling accounts.   He regularly calls to these farmers late in the evenings and during lunchtimes to optimise the opportunities of them being available to discuss business.                               He has a personal allowance of 20,000 kms on a company car and he often travels during the week to coach a senior hurling club team. On 6th December 2017 he called to a property around 12 noon, had lunch nearby and went to an underage match for some of it.     He made two more calls that evening and finished up around 11.15pm.   He was asked on 8th December to fill in weekly call sheets and told that the information could just be approximately entered.     On 15th December 2017 he was called into the Sales Manager’s office and asked was he at a hurling match the previous week.   The Complainant confirmed that he was, and he was told that the issue might be progressed as it reflected badly on the Manager. He was called to a disciplinary meeting on 11th January 2018 with HR and the Sales Manager. He had been told nothing too serious would come of it. However, he was then shocked to receive an email on 15th January 2018 stating that the disciplinary sanction imposed would be a final written warning. He appealed but the appeal was not upheld.                       The Complainant is shocked and disappointed that the Company should impose such a sanction, without due process (The Sales Manager was the Investigating Manager and the Disciplinary Manager).   He was not advised that the serious sanction of written warning was a possible outcome of the process. He had an unblemished record since he started with the Company and has never been engaged in any disciplinary process.   He is an honest and diligent worker whose role carries a certain amount of autonomy and flexibility and he has often worked outside normal hours for the company. For these reasons and the fact that due process was not given to him, the sanction of final written warning should not have been imposed.

The Respondent argues that a final warning was warranted and proportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case which were as follows:

The Complainant had notified Senior Management that he had begun training a GAA team and he sought information on what personal mileage he could use with the company vehicle after work. During a routine check, it became evident that his mileage records were higher than average. The Sales Manager requested a copy of the Complainant’s mileage details for BIK purposes covering a 5 day reference period. In the meantime, the Manager received an anonymous message concerning the Complainant’s presence at a GAA match during normal working hours. He notified the Complainant that it was alleged that he had attended the match during working hours at a location not part of his business route and the Complainant agreed that he had in fact attended the match. The Complainant was invited to a disciplinary meeting. The letter inviting him set out the purpose of the meeting, the allegation against him and the right to be accompanied by a representative. The Complainant elected not to be represented. The decision to issue a final written warning was issued to him by way of letter dated 12th January 2018.   He appealed the sanction but the appeal was not upheld.  

It is argued that the Complainant’s actions were a clear breach of the agreed company absence policy in that he was on an unauthorised absence on the day in question. The Complainant had omitted the area from his mileage sheet and could offer no explanation as to the reason.                       It is argued that the Complainant did not have the approval of the Respondent to attend the GAA match during working hours nor did he have permission to reroute and use company assets for that purpose and that given all the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed was appropriate.

I note that flexibility is a requirement for the role the Complainant occupies and I accept his evidence that he often had to call to customers after hours. This is of benefit to the business.       The Company is correct in its view that the optics of an employee being seen at a match in the middle of the working day does not reflect well on the Company. However, in this case I find that given the Complainant’s flexibility and commitment, and the fact that this does not seem to have been taken into account, the sanction of final written warning was too harsh.     I note that in the appeal outcome report dated 9 March 2018, a commitment was given that the Complainant’s Manager would clarify how lunch breaks should be taken on the road.                                                         I recommend that this commitment be followed up. I also recommend that the Complainant fills out his mileage sheet in more accurate detail for the future. In the meantime, for the reasons cited, I recommend that the disciplinary sanction be extinguished from the Complainant’s record.