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-00012860-001

29/07/2017

The complainant has worked for the respondent in a clerical capacity for the past fourteen years. The dispute concerns a disciplinary sanction taken against the complainant arising from an alleged telephone interaction with a customer/supplier of the respondent in May 2017. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing.

The complainant submits that arising from the abovementioned telephone interaction she was required to attend a counselling hearing in respect of “Serious communication issues with a supplier/customer”. She had recorded the fact that there was a disagreement with the supplier during the conversation on the day it occurred. She was invited subsequently to attend counselling under the disciplinary procedure. She was not afforded fair procedure, there was no investigation, issues unknown to the complainant were raised, no written complaint or specific details provided, a nine-month monitoring sanction was applied, the external consultant was involved in the disciplinary and appeals process and the respondent failed to take the complainant’s long and unblemished record into account.

The respondent submits that it has been both fair and reasonable. The complainant was invited to a counselling meeting and was informed of its nature in advance. She was represented at all meetings and given an opportunity to state her case which she did. Her position was considered. She was advised that there is a problem with her communication in the company and she was asked to change. Counselling is not a part of disciplinary action in accordance with S.I. 146 of 2000.

I would suggest that the spirit and content of the Grievance and Disciplinary Policy and Procedure are somewhat at odds. Informal Counselling is the term used in the relevant document and would imply that an informal supportive discussion would take place. It would not necessarily require a formal notification of meeting or follow up process. I suggest that the relevant document should distinguish between 1. Informal Disciplinary Procedure with a subheading Counselling and 2. Formal Disciplinary Procedure with the subheadings extant.

Additionally, I acknowledge that the respondent found itself in a difficult position in that it was obliged to deal with a complaint from the MD of the supplier/customer and this may have influenced what can only be described as the heavy-handed approach taken.

Informal counselling implies notification of dis-satisfaction and the provision of advice and support to rectify operational aberration.

It is obvious that in this case the complainant noted that she had a disagreement with the supplier prior to receipt of the complaint and presumably felt herself in the right. It was not appropriate to have recourse to the disciplinary procedure in advance of even an informal investigation of the complaint. In any event it is obvious from the communication of the 25th of May 2017 that the respondent director took the view that the suppliers complaint in relation to how he was spoken to was valid and did not accept the complainant’s position in the matter. He raised additional matters at the meeting to justify that view. I am surprised that he did not invoke the informal counselling process previously.

The complainant has the right of this matter in my view.

I recommend that the respondent revoke the disciplinary sanction and record as it relates to the allegations against the complainant and that the institutional parties amend the relevant policy document to provide clarity and avoid pitfalls in the future.