Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An online purchasing assistant / driver

A network of retail stores

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-00018954-001

04/05/2018

The complainant has been employed by the respondent company since 2007 and he is currently assigned to their retail delivery service. He is also the safety representative in the store where he works.   From the information presented to me at the hearing, it appears that this representative role and his approach to health and safety has brought him into conflict with management.

This complaint is about what the complainant perceives as the unfairness of a warning issued to him in October 2017 when he failed to complete a delivery to a customer because he could not safely park at the customer’s address.

In April 2017, the complainant was out on deliveries and he had a problem finding parking near an apartment block in Dublin city centre where he was required to do a delivery. He went back to the store with the customer’s order and phoned the customer services centre to inform them that the delivery wasn’t completed. He did not phone the customer, which is what the company said he should have done. In his submission at the hearing, Mr Callan said that the complainant didn’t phone the customer because he didn’t want to cause conflict between him and the customer.

Mr Callan’s submission outlined in chronological order the meetings which took place following this incident, which resulted in the issuing of a written warning on October 9th 2017. This was to remain on the complainant’s file for six months, so it expired on April 8th 2018. However, the complainant appealed the company’s decision to issue him with a warning and the written warning was reduced to a verbal warning, which expired on January 8th 2018.

While he accepts that the warnings have expired, the complainant is concerned that evidence of this warning remains on his otherwise unblemished record and he wants the company to ensure that they are removed from the paper files and also from the company’s electronic personnel file. He also wants to carry out his role as a health and safety representative in a constructive way, without fear of criticism or further disciplinary sanction.

At the hearing into this complaint, the store manager where the complainant works said that the process for handling customer orders that can’t be delivered is clear.   The customer is to be phoned by the driver. Having received a call to say that there’s a problem with parking, the customer may be able to meet the van to collect their shopping, or they may be able to direct the driver to a safe parking place. The company’s position is that the complainant was trained on this procedure and he received a warning because he did not follow the procedures set out at the training.

The warnings have now expired and, on behalf of the respondent, Ms Sherlock said that she would communicate the requirement to ensure that no record of the written warning or the verbal warning is available in paper or electronic form.

Ms Sherlock said that it is in the company’s interest to ensure that health and safety is a priority, as any risk to staff or customers results in costs and reputational damage.

From the evidence presented at the hearing of this complaint, it is clear that the written warning issued in October 2017 was considered by the complainant to be unfair and undeserved, as he said that he is an excellent worker and is passionate about his role as a health and safety representative. It’s obvious from what he said that this “passion” gets him into trouble at times and he may be considered to be a bit zealous in his commitment to ensuring a safe working environment for him and his colleagues.

As the issue of health and safety in the workplace is an issue that should not be a cause of conflict between workers and management, I encouraged the complainant to try to develop a positive relationship with the company’s safety management team.   At the hearing, the complainant said that he now has a more constructive relationship with the company’s Compliance Manager and he is committed to working with her in a collaborative way to ensure that the health and safety agenda is supported and that risks are managed.

While both sides have different opinions about the warning issued in October 2017, this is now in the past and no involvement on my part can have any effect on the matter. Since then, the complainant said that he is happy in his role and he feels that he is doing a good job.

Having considered this dispute, it would appear that the complainant has moved forward to work with the Compliance Manager to deal with health and safety issues. This is a positive outcome from what was a negative incident, which, appears unlikely to be repeated. I recommend that the complainant avail of any training that is available to improve his skills as a health and safety representative, and also his influencing and communication skills. In this way, he can be supported to carry out his important tole.

I recommend that the company remove all references to the warning of October 2017 as soon as technically possible.

Disciplinary warning