Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Financial Services Provider

Representatives

Citizens Information Centre

Purdy & Co. Solicitors

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-00018311-001

05/04/2018

The claimant has been employed as a teller with the respondent since 1997.She was aggrieved about the alleged absence of fair procedures when the respondent decided to sanction her by way of a final written warning .She complained that they failed to observe their own procedures and contended that the alleged misconduct did not constitute a breach of any contractual terms and conditions of employment as provided for in the respondent’s handbook.The claimant’s representative set out a chronology of the sequence of events leading to the disciplinary sanction.The claimant had enquired about the availability of free tickets for a Country & Western Dance in a local hotel – she was organising an event in the hotel for her daughter that night .The assistant hotel manager undertook to look into it. A complaint was subsequently made about the ticket request by the hotel manager to the respondent – this ultimately led to the sanction of a final warning for a 12 month period.The sanction was appealed but the appeal was not upheld.

It was submitted that the warning contravened due process , natural justice and fair procedures.It was contended that the claimant’s actions were not in breach of her terms of employment or the staff handbook and that consequently she should not have been sanctioned.It was submitted that the hotel had in fact presented the respondent staff with Christmas gifts .It was submitted that the respondent had no policy on gifts and the respondents BFGroup had issued cash gifts for staff in return for the administration of a voucher scheme.It was submitted that the claimant had simply enquired if there was any chance of a few free tickets.It was submitted that the respondent had relied upon 2 previous letters issued to the claimant about her behaviour even though both letters confirmed that the claimant was not being subjected to a formal warning.It was submitted that the claimant had not at any stage been invited to participate in a disciplinary process to investigate said behaviour.It was submitted that the letters should not at any stage have formed part of the disciplinary process.It was submitted that the respondent had filed to observe the escalating disciplinary procedure provided for in the company handbook .It was submitted that the respondent’s actions were disproportionate and that the respondent had failed to take account of the claimant’s exemplary work record and 20 years of service.It was contended that the individual who allegedly made the complaint Mr.K had confirmed in writing  that he wished to disassociate himself from the complaint and that he had never intended to make a personal complaint against the claimant.

The respondent referred to the claimant’s decision to decline mediation offered by the WRC and to decline a further offer from the respondent for mediation through an agreed mediator.It was submitted that the respondent had in fact objected to an investigation by an adjudicator on the 10th.May 2018.

It was submitted that the claimant was called to an investigation hearing on the 18th.Oct. 2017 on foot of complaints made by Mr.PK and Mr.D.O.D. from the hotel where the function took place.The respondent’s representative chronicled the disciplinary process , the issuing of the sanction and the unsuccessful outcome of the appeal.It was submitted that the allegations against the claimant were sufficient to warrant a final written warning in accordance with the Handbook.It was contended that as a year had elapsed since the issuing of the warning , “ same is now moot”.

It was argued that it was not a matter for the respondent to bring Mr.K to the hearing and that Mr.K had been interviewed during the disciplinary process.It was submitted that the 2 previous warnings had been looked at in the context of mitigation .It was submitted that the matter was now moot and that the employer had confirmed to the claimant in the letter dated the 8th.Nov. 2018 that “ the period of validity of your final written warning will expire on 17th.November 2018 and as a result , all relevant paperwork will be removed from your personnel file.The final written warning will be disregarded in any future proceedings “.

Recommendation

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.