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-00018478-001

12/04/2018

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent as a security guard in May 2016.

The respondent suspended on 8/2/18. He was put through a disciplinary process in February 2018 for leaving his security hut. This culminated in a final written warning, reduced later to a written warning being issued to him.

He seeks to have the written warning reduced to a verbal warning. He seeks to return to his original site. He seeks to recover loss of salary.

His annual salary is €28,000. He works an average of 40 hours per week.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 12/4/18.

The complainat worked for the respondent for a period of 33 months.

On 4/2/18, the complainant had a problem with his car battery. His car was parked adjacent to the security hut to which he was assigned. He also had a radio on him. A third security officer was assigned to the hut.The complainant asked a colleague to help him remove the battery. An alleged complaint was submitted to the management.

A disciplinary process was activated against him. On 8/2/18 he was placed on paid suspension. Mr T, site manager,investigated the complaint on 9/2/18. He apologised for leaving the hut. A disciplinary meeting took place on 16/2/18, also chaired by Mr T. He was issued with a final written warning on 19/2/18 and removed from the particular site on which he had worked. During the 5 week period of his suspension , he was assigned no work and received no pay

The complaianat was inhibited from appealing the sancition as the sanction was not conveyed in writing to him until 21/3/18. Siptu contacted the HR manager on 9/3/18. He submitted the appeal on 28 March 2018.

Since March 2018 , the complaianat has sought to have his sanction   reduced, to hold on to his postion on that particular site, Company A, and to be compensated for the loss of earnings suffered by him while on suspension.

The appeal against the sanction imposed on the complaianat was heard by the regional manager on 3/8/18. The outcome of the appeal was a reduction in the warning from a final written warning to a written warning to last for a period of 6 months and an offer of a compensatory sum for loss of earnings.

The complaianat rejected the appeal outcome as the timelines employed by the respondent in notifying him in writing of the warning and the delay in hearing the appeal offer are outside the timelines reccommended by S.I. 146.

In additon he objects to being removed from the Client A. Since his removal he has not received a regular roster. The work offer is more in keeping with cover work, with some shifts offered for as little as two hours.

His wages have fallen from €3000 a fortnight to €500 for some fortnightly periods.

He is opposed to his reassignment to Client B as permanency on this site is not guaranteed.

The respondent provides security services to various clients.

The complainant who is employed as a security guard left his post on 4/2/18 to attend to his car. This was viewed as a serious incident and a breach of duty towards Company A, their biggest client. They require strict compliance with their procedures.

The complainant attended an investigative meeting with the HR manage on 9/2/18 which led to a disciplinary meeting on 16/2/18. He confirmed that he left his designated post for a period in excess of 30 minutes and apologised. He was informed of the disciplinary sanction. He was issued with a final written warning and he was removed from working with that particular client, Company A. The client can de-select particular officers for his business – this is standard within the security industry. The sanction of a final written warning was deemed to be appropriate.

He was suspended with pay on 8/2/18.

An appeal meeting took place on 3/8/18 with the respondent’s regional manager to try and resolve the matter. The final written warning was reduced to a written warning to run until February 2019. The complainant asked that it be reduced to a verbal warning.

The respondent endeavoured to find him a permanent site. They wanted to offer the complainant another site, B, with a fixed 40 hours a week commitment. Assignment to this site entails additional screening as that client deals with financial information. The respondent could not guarantee that this will be a permanent assignment no more than they could for the previous client from whom he was removed. His contract is not site specific. The complainant objected to the assignment to company B, as it was not permanent, and he objected to the additional screening as screening would show up the issue which he had with when assigned to client A. The respondent denies that screening would show up the issue which he had with company A.

The respondent offered him €1300 by way of compensation so factoring in that offer his actual loss was 2 weeks salary as he was paid for the week 7-14 February.

It is accepted that the complainant left the security hut to which he was assigned for a period of 30 minutes on 4/2/18.

Notwithstanding the imperfect application of the disciplinary process ,I do not find, in all of the circumstances, that the issue of a written warning of 6 months duration and now expired to be disproportionate.

The complainant’s loss is disputed. The respondent did not furnish the redacted bank accounts demonstrating that the complainant had been paid for the period 7-14 February.

The complainant’s evidence was that his annual salary is €28,000 p.a. based on an average of 40 hours per week and that he lost 5 weeks’ salary due to the respondent’s failure to assign work to him while the disciplinary process was in train. The respondent states that they were obliged to provide him with 16 Hours a week minimum during the period February – March 2018.

I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant 4 weeks salary amounting to the sum of €2,153 in respect of the loss incurred by him.

I recommend that the respondent assign him to a site offering the same conditions, hours of work, as were available to him with Company A.

I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant the sum of €2,153. I recommend that the respondent assign the complainant to a site offering the same terms and conditions as were available to him when assigned to Company A.