ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Rail Engineer | Rail Infrastructure Providers |
Representatives | Brendan McCarthy - Stratis Consulting |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00027900-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
Having confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and Having conducted the Investigation as described in Section 13 I, as the so appointed Adjudication Officer, am bound to make a recommendation which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.
Under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, any party may object to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer of the dispute raised in the complaint form. The Respondent employer must indicate any such objection in writing within 21 days of the notification of the dispute raised in the workplace relations complaint form. In the event that the Employer does not indicate an unwillingness to have this matter dealt with by way of Adjudicator investigation, the Employer will be regarded as having given consent.
Background:
The Complainant has worked in a technical field with the Respondent company since 2011. The Complainant is seeking a reduction or an expungement of a disciplinary sanction imposed on him by letter dated the 26th of February 2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant rejects the Employer’s contention that an incident which occurred on the 15th of December 2018 warranted a disciplinary sanction of a written warning which would stay on his file for 12 months form the date of issuing (26th of February). The Complainant challenged the procedures adopted in reaching the final decision. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent asserts its entitlement to apply the sanction having gone through the various steps of having a workplace investigation, a Disciplinary process as well as an Appeals process. It rejects the allegation that there are procedural flaws which render the process unfair and maintains that the sanction errs on the side of being light given the circumstances. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In essence, the Complainant has asked me to consider the procedures adopted in the course of this Disciplinary process to determine whether the process was fair and whether the sanction was proportionate. The Complainant’s representative urged me to take into account the fact that the Complainant had a long service history that was uneventful and unblemished. It was not tenable, he said, that the Complainant’s record would be subject to an arbitrary sanction which was disproportionate and unfair in all the circumstances. I have carefully read through the documents provided to me by both sides. The Complainant’s papers contain a degree of pre-history which has (to my mind) no relevance. I can understand that he might be frustrated at what he perceives to be his systematic by-passing for promotion, but I cannot see how this can somehow be conflated with the facts that have given rise to the Disciplinary sanction herein. I can understand that the Complainant was aggrieved that an investigation appeared to be underway before he had been notified that a complaint had been made. The actions of his line Managers in this regard was less than ideal. However, it is not fatal to the actual investigation formally conducted by Mr. MP who was drafted in from Glasgow for just this purpose. It is common case that the matter being investigated is a row that occurred between the Complainant and a Manager BM. This happened in the canteen of the workplace on the 15th of December 2018. On balance, I accept that this row escalated well beyond the trigger point. It started with the Manager asking the Complainant to perform a function with the Complainant refusing to carry out the said task until he had finished his lunch break. The Manager saw this as insubordination and the Complainant saw it as a proposed disruption to his break from which he shouldn’t be disturbed. I cannot imagine either gentleman came out of this interaction very well, but the witness statements tend to suggest that the Complainant’s language and obdurate behaviour was the more stark of the two. In any event, the Manager made a complaint about the Complainant’s behaviour and a Disciplinary process ensued. High level management personnel were drafted in to conduct each of the three steps undertaken - the Investigation, the Disciplinary meeting and the Appeals process. The Complainant was issued with a written warning to last up to twelve months. It is worth noting that the Complainant was not given a final written warning and was not dismissed. Neither was the Complainant issued with a lesser verbal warning. All these other warnings had been provided for in the Disciplinary handbook. On balance, I cannot see that the disciplinary outcome was not within the range of sanctions that was open to be applied. I know that the Complainant feels it was harsh but I do not see it as being overly harsh and falls within the range of possible sanctions which might be applied.
|
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 CA-00027900-001 – I make no recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act. |
Dated: 29th July 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
|