Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Supervisor

A Steel Galvanising Company

Representatives

Bernadette Thornton SIPTU

Ananta Kaur IBEC

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-00029278-001

24/06/2019

The Complainant was sanctioned for not wearing Protective clothing and is challenging the extent of the sanction as well as the manner in which evidence was gathered the Investigation.

The Complainant was represented by his Union and I was presented with a comprehensive and helpful submission.

The Respondent was represented and I was provided with a comprehensive submission.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced herein. The Claimant has worked with the Respondent for nearly 40 years. He is a loyal and hard-working member of the workforce. The Claimant is a supervisor and did not, in evidence, shy away from acknowledging that he has a complete understanding of what is expected of him in that role. In particular, the Claimant knows how to work to the highest possible standards of Safety and Health.

In and around November 2018, and for reasons which have not been explained, the Claimant allowed himself get drawn into a conversation with a junior member of staff whilst at the same took a seated -position on or close to a bath of molten liquid which was being actively agitated.

The risk of dangerous splashes from this 450-degree Celsius liquid was very high meaning that the Claimant, who was not wearing the required personal protection clothing, had placed himself in the way of a serious harm of which he knew or ought to have known.

The Claimant accepted that he knew the liquid was dangerous and he accepted that his proximity to the bath went against all of his training and all of his knowledge and understanding of the dangers inherent in this workplace.

The Claimant’s actions were observed, and he was disciplined following an investigation which comprised an eye witness account by the Health and Safety Officer as well as an examination of the available CCTV footage. The outcome of the Disciplinary process including an Appeal was a six month written warning on his file together with the removal of his Supervisor status for six months.

The Claimant makes the case that the imposition of two sanctions was unfair and additionally that the use of CCTV footage was unfair. The Claimant also put forward the proposition that if the Health and Safety Officer did not intervene at the point in time that he observed the proximity of the Claimant to the molten liquid, then the incident could not be deemed as grave as the sanctions suggest.

I am inclined to agree with the Claimant on this last point that and it seems that the Health and Safety Officer did not take the corrective and immediate course of action and instead waited for 45 minutes to report the behaviour. However, the fact of the that the Health and Safety Officer was tardy in his reaction does not make the incident under investigation any less dangerous or serious.

Regarding the use of CCTV footage, I do not see that it was inappropriate to have regard to this material evidence at that time of the investigation. It is well established that CCTV cameras were put into the workplace in high risk accident locations for precisely the reason of understanding how accidents happen and I cannot see the merit in distinguishing between actual accidents and the risk of accidents. Bad Health and Safety practises need to be eradicated by whatever means possible.

Lastly, the Claimant said it was not always practical for him in his role of Supervisor to be constantly donning the full Protective regalia every time a subordinate asked for a bit of support. However, the employer herein (Operations Manager) indicated that whilst there might be margins for when it is not necessary to put of the equipment, this was an example of a flagrant breach of all codes of safety practise (sitting on the edge of a bath filled with molten liquid) and it was therefore impossible not to discipline the Claimant. In addition, the fact that the Claimant was a supervisor meant that his duty was to give and create a good example for those working around and under him.

On balance I find that the Disciplinary measures were not onerous or disproportionate and were intended to be act as a deterrent from ever again putting himself at risk of injury.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00029278-001

I do not recommend any change in the sanction already applied herein. Whilst the sanction of loss of supervisor rate was harsh it was in no way disproportionate to the evel of potential hazard created by the Claimant herein.

I recommend that consideration should be given to amending the CCTV policy currently in operation so as to allow footage to be considered where a circumstances have given rise to a “risk” of an accident as well as in the aftermath of an actual accident (already provided for).

I understand the Claimant’s frustration at the apparent failure by his Managers to recognise that it is simply not possible or practical to put on the full safety equipment every time a query comes from Junior staff and I recommend that a system is worked out and devised which all parties recognise what works to optimum safety levels but which ensures that the Claimant (and his output) is not disadvantaged by his duty to assist those around him.

For the purposes of clarity, I recommend that the Employer make it very clear to any party to whom the duty of Health and Safety Officer has been given, understands that – where possible- immediate intervention is always required so as to avoid a situation (as has arisen here) of an investigation after the event which might have the appearance of being vindictive.