Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Lead Technician

Manufacturer

Representatives

SIPTU

IBEC

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-00022181-001

26/09/2018

The Worker commenced his employment with the Employer in 1993 as a Technician and was promoted to Lead Technician in 1998. The Worker claims that he was deliberately targeted for disciplinary sanction as he would not co-operate with the Employer in returning to Technician post.

The Worker seeks removal of disciplinary sanction from his record.

The Worker submits that he has maintained an exemplary record throughout his 25 years’ service with the Employer.

The Worker submits that on 6th February 2018 when he was leaving the canteen after his break he received a telephone call from an operator who requested him to fix a problem on a specific machine on the shop floor. The Worker submits that he went immediately to the mentioned machine and fixed the problem. The machine was ready for operation within minutes. The Worker submits that he moved to fix another machine further down the shop floor. While he was there, Mr J, Technical Supervisor approached him and informed him that he had not inputted the information for the downtime on the first machine. When the Worker was finished with the second machine he returned to the first machine and entered the details of the downtime on the system. The total downtime was 17 minutes.

The Worker submits that on 8th February 2018 he received an email from the Technical Supervisor to attend a disciplinary meeting which was held on 9th February in respect of what was classed as a category D dismissal offence by the Employer. The Worker submits that he attended the meeting with his senior union representative Mr P. The meeting turned out to be an investigation meeting. The Worker explained to the hearing the details of the allegation against him. In essence, at this meeting it was put to the Worker that he inputted incorrect information in respect of the downtime i.e. waiting for a technician time and fixing time on 6th February. The Worker confirmed that he inputted the downtime as 5 minutes waiting for technician and 12 minutes fixing machine, approximately an hour or so after he had fixed the machine. The Worker could not enter the downtime until the machine has been started back up again and when this occurred the Worker was attending to another machine. The Work submits that he thought 17 minutes was the total time of the fix not realising that the operator had not recorded that the machine had been down for a total of 10 minutes before the Worker had received the call to fix the problem. The Worker noted that he put 5 minutes waiting and 12 minutes fixing the problem as an educated guess.

The Worker submits that it was during the fourth meeting of the investigation process that the Worker discovered that the machine was actually down for 10 minutes before he received the phone call to fix it. The phone records had highlighted this evidence. This evidence was made available to the Worker at their fourth meeting.

The Worker submits that the Investigation Report stated:

“[The Worker] was asked on several occasions throughout the investigation meetings as to whether the information of the fixing of the problem was 12 minutes and waiting for technician for 5 minutes as he entered into the [system] was correct. At each meeting he was adamant that this was the case. However, the phone records prove that this was not the case…[the Worker] received the call at 10.38.34 which was 10 minutes after the machine went down which concluded the waiting for technician was 11 minutes (given him 1 minute to get to the machine) with a 6-minute fix.”

The Worker submits that on 19th April 2018 he was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing on 26th April 2018 and was represented by SIPTU. The Worker raised several points at this meeting. The outcome of the meeting was issued on 18th June 2018 and the Worker was issued with a written warning.

The outcome was appealed on 26th June 2018 and the appeal hearing was held on 3rd August 2018. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the decision was issued on 25th September 2018.

The Worker referred his claim to the WRC on 26th September 2018.

The Worker submits that he has no previous disciplinary warnings and his unblemished record of 25 years was not given the full consideration. The Worker submits that the investigation was conducted by Mr J, Technical Supervisor and Ms M, Personnel Officer. The Worker claims that Mr J gave evidence to the investigation process and therefore made judgement on his own evidence submitted, which is a flawed investigation process. The Worker submits that he did not alter the total downtime of the machine. The investigation team provided the phone records which had shown the machine was down for 10 minutes before the Worker received the phone call. The Worker could not have known this and he recorded the downtime as he thought it had occurred.

Furthermore, the Worker submits that the phone evidence was not provided to him until the fourth meeting. The Worker contends that the Investigation team deliberately withheld this information to entrap him.

The Worker argues that had the issue of the 10 minutes downtime been made known to the Worker he would not have found himself in this situation. He entered the information as he believed it to be at the time. The Worker argues that he was not dishonest as is being accused by the Employer.

The Worker submits that his review within the Company have been good grades with one very good grade and one just 1 point short of excellent.

The Worker submits that on 15th January 2018, he was called by Mr J, the Technical Supervisor and Mr J requested the Worker to resign his post as Lead Technician and return to the post of Technician due to too many Lead Technicians on the day shift. The Worker submits that Mr J had prepared the calculations of the loss of earning if the Worker decided to take up the offer. The Worker claims that he rejected this request as he had been a Lead Technician for 16 years without blemish. The Worker claims that Mr J asked him to consider the request. The Worker claims that Mr J asked him again about the matter 2 weeks later. Again, the Worker rejected this position. The Worker submits that shortly afterward, on 8th February he received an email from Mr J to attend a disciplinary meeting regarding the above matter. The Worker contends that he was deliberately targeted for disciplinary sanction as he would not co-operate with Mr J in returning to Technician post, in order to facilitate the Employer’s issue of resources.

The Worker seeks the written warning sanction to be expunged from his record.

The Employer submits that in his role as Lead Technician the Worker is required to monitor technicians reporting to him to prioritise work when there are multiple issues to ensure the uptime of the machines. This particular instance occurred at a specific location which is a line made up of eight machines with two operators and one technician assigned. It had been identified by production management that downtime “waiting for technicians” was significantly high at that location and on 5th February 2018 the Worker was asked to monitor the matter.

The Employer submits that on 6th February it was observed that a machine in that location went down for a total period of 17 minutes. The system noted that the downtime was originally attributed to “Waiting for Technician” as created by the Operator when it went down. Subsequently, the Worker amended the system to 5 minutes waiting for technician and 12 minutes fixing time. The Employer submits that an investigation was initiated to establish why the machine was down for 17 minutes waiting time subsequently changed to 5 minutes.

The Employer submits that the machine in question went down at 10.28am and at approx. 12.30 the Worker was advised by Mr J, Senior Technical Supervisor to speak to operators running the line to agree the amendment before changing the system and the Worker did nor do this. Rather he amended the system himself.

The Employer submits that the Worker was invited to an investigatory meeting on 9th February 2018. The Worker was advised that the meeting was to investigate the matter and should it be deemed as falsification of documents and if allegation was upheld it fell into a category D sanction, which could result in a final written warning as per the Company/Union Agreement classification system.

The Employer submits that the Worker attended four investigation meetings on 9th February, 12th February, 14th February and 14th March, during which he was represented. During the meetings, the Worker stated persistently that the downtime was 5 minutes waiting for technician and 12 minutes fixing the problem. The Employer submits that initially the Worker denied that his manager had advised him to speak with the operators prior to amending the reporting times but he eventually accepted that a conversation had taken place but he had decided not to speak to the operators as he “didn’t do conflict”. The Employer submits that at the 4th meeting the Worker was informed that the contact wasn’t made with him 10 minutes after the machine went down leaving the remaining 7 minutes for him to get to the machine and fixed it. On viewing the new information in respect of the time frame the Worker changed his evidence stating that the times provided were an estimation based on his recall of the repair.

The Employer submits that the investigation team concluded that the Worker did not amend the system as directed by his manager in consultation with the operators and the information inputted was factually incorrect.

On 19th April 2018 the Worker was invited to a disciplinary meeting which was held on 31st May 2018. As a result, a written warning was issued to the Worker to remain on his file for 12 months. The Worker appealed the outcome. The appeal meeting took place on 3rd August and on 20th September the Worker was informed that his appeal had failed.

The Employer submits that the Worker was at all times afforded fair procedures.

The Respondent cited Looney & Co. Ltd c Looney UD 843/1984 and Keelings Distribution Limited and A Worker LCR19291.

The issues for consideration in this case is whether the Employer acted reasonably in concluding that the Worker was guilty of misconduct and whether the imposition of a written warning was a fair and proportionate response.

I note that the Worker had an unblemished record for some 25 years.

I note the Worker’s assertion that he was targeted for a disciplinary sanction as he would not co-operate with Mr J in returning to technician post. It was in dispute whether or not the conversation in that regard did actually take place. However, it was confirmed by both parties that on 5th February 2018 the Worker was asked by Mr J to monitor the particular area within the plant in terms of downtime. I note that as soon as on the next day the Worker, after 25 years of unblemished record, became a subject to an investigation in that regard.

I note the Employer’s assertion that it places a serious emphasis on ensuring that the downtime of the machines is monitored as it has a significant impact on the customer production schedule and ultimately has a monetary impact. However, I also note that both parties confirmed at the hearing that the Employer does not have a monitoring system in place e.g. a stopwatch/timer, clock in/out system. It appears that having established the total downtime of a machine a technician/ lead technician allocates approximate time as repair time and as waiting time. The Worker disputed that this is always done in conjunction with an operator, as claimed by the Employer. Both parties confirmed that, in essence the information entered in the system is an “educated guess”. In the absence of any monitoring system and taking what seems to be a somewhat relaxed approach in that regard I find that the sanction applied to the Worker was quite severe, particularly taking his length of service into consideration.

I find that Mr J, Senior Technical Supervisor who was directly involved in the incident also carried out the investigation. I find that this was not in keeping with best practice. I note that he did not get involved with the disciplinary meeting. However, I am of the view that, taking Mr J’s involvement in the process into account and the fact that his evidence was measured against the Worker’s and heavily influenced the outcome of the investigation, his participation in the investigatory team was inappropriate.

I also have some concerns in respect of the telephone log not being made available to the Worker until the fourth meeting on 14th February 2018. I also note that at this meeting the Worker was asked first to confirm if he was sure that the times entered were accurate before the log was presented to him to contradict what he had said.

In view of my findings above in respect of flawed procedure, the absence of robust monitoring system and the Worker’s long service I find that the sanction imposed was disproportionate.

I recommend that the disciplinary sanction be expunged from the Worker’s record.

I recommend that the disciplinary sanction be expunged from the Complainant’s record.

I recommend that the Employer clearly sets out their current operating policy, procedure and instructions on the downtime reporting and implements a suitable and robust system in that regard.

I recommend that the Worker strictly adheres to these instructions in a cooperative manner.

Appeal of written warning