ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00014514
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00018866-001 | 02/05/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/10/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker challenges a final written warning issued to him following a video posted on social media that purports to show him physically removing a disruptive customer from his bus. |
Summary of the Worker’s Case:
The worker outlined that he was unfairly issued with a final written warning arising from a video clip posted on social media on the 28th November 2017. He submitted that the use of the social media clip was a breach of policy and made the process unfair. He submitted that the video could have been manipulated and there was no credible basis to issue a sanction. No passenger had made a complaint. He submitted that the disciplinary process was based on what the customer experience manager saw and only reported one month later. The complainant had refused to answer questions based on the report of the video clip. He submitted that the employer could not start a process where it is not a data controller and the footage could have been manipulated. The worker relied on ADJ 11405 where it was found that a dismissal was unfair where it was made on the basis of an online comment regarding a “waitress with red hair”. |
Summary of the Employer’s Case:
The employer outlined that the worker was given the opportunity to set out his side of the story. This was not a flawed process and he had the opportunity to clear his name. The employer was a customer-based organisation and there was a risk of reputational damage arising from the incident. It submitted that the worker ought to have stayed in his cab and called for assistance when dealing with the disruptive customer. It submitted that the customer experience manager followed up immediately on seeing the social media video and this was at the time that the worker was on three weeks’ leave. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, and in the circumstances of this dispute, I recommend that the best way forward is that the warning be reduced to a Stage 2 Verbal Warning. It should remain on the worker’s file for nine months (as provided in the disciplinary policy) dating from the 16th January 2018. After the expiry of this period, the warning should be removed from the worker’s file. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00018866-001 I recommend that the warning be reduced to a Stage 2 Verbal Warning and remain on the worker’s file for nine months dating from the 16th January 2018 and be removed from the worker’s file on the expiry of this period. |
Dated: 20/02/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act Video footage / social media Disciplinary procedure / fair procedures |