Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{An Officer}

{A University}

Representatives

Vivian Cullen SIPTU-Trade Union

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-00028842-001

05/06/2019

The Complainant has been in employment since July 2007 with the Respondent. He has been absent from work since 16th August 2018 on sick-leave.

The Complainant appeals a 9 month verbal warning issued by the Respondent, and says this is disproportionate and unwarranted given the background and mitigating circumstances.

The Complainant has a separate complaint ongoing involving bullying and due process. This is the genesis and relates to the appeal. The 2 complaints are related. The Complainant is a graduate of the college and has worked for over 10 years with the Respondent.

Various complaints were made against the Complainant of non-attendance at Occupational Health appointment, failure to ensure information furnished by his GP, failure to telephone his manager to advise of his absence, failure to submit social welfare benefits for 3 weeks to the Respondent. A formal investigation was opened.

The Complainant’s representatives said that these issues should be seen in the context of wider concerns and also in close proximity to another complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission, which led to occupational stress and absenteeism.   The Investigator found a case to answer and considered the appropriate sanction to be a formal verbal warning for 9 months, with any recurrences resulting in a full disciplinary hearing. The Appeal was not upheld.

The Complainant’s representatives complain there is a breach of Natural Justice as the sanction should be applied in a disciplinary hearing by a separate party. The Complainant seeks the verbal warning be quashed.

The Respondent refutes the Complainant’s claim that they issued a verbal warning following submission of a complaint under the Respondent’s Dignity & Respect Policy. This is misleading and incorrect.

The Complainant’s complaint has been heard by the Workplace Relations Commission under ADJ00018770. He has been absent on sick-leave since 16th August 2018. The Respondent sent a number of reminders to the Complainant of the requirements of the Sick Leave Policy and consequences of failure to do so from August 2018.

The Complainant was requested to attend a formal investigation meeting on 14th December 2018 to address concerns of non compliance with the Sick Leave Policy of non-attendance at 2 Occupational Health appointments, failure to provide reason, failure to ensure information furnished by his GP, failure to telephone his manager to advise of his absence, failure to return to work when recommended by the Occupational Health Doctor, failure to submit social welfare benefits for 3 weeks to the Respondent.

The Complainant was represented in the investigation and appeals process by his Trade Union. The formal investigation meeting was carried out in accordance with the agreed Union/College procedures. The sanction of a formal verbal warning was given to remain on file for 9 months with any further recurrence’s of breaches resulting in the matter being referred for a full Disciplinary Hearing. The Appeal was unsuccessful. The Complainant could not provide any reasons to substantiate his belief that the sanction was unwarranted and disproportionate.

I have heard and considered carefully the submissions of the parties.

The Complainant has been absent on work-related stress sick-leave which he alleges is linked to his complaints of bullying and harassment in the workplace. These matters were excluded by the Respondent from consideration in their formal investigation into the Complainant’s non-compliance with Sick-Leave Policies.

There have been breaches of the Sick-Leave Policy by the Complainant which occurred during the period August to November 2018, when the Complainant was ill. There has also been dispute regarding the views of the Respondent’s Occupational Health Doctor regarding the Complainant’s return to work, with the contrary view expressed by other doctors assessing the Complainant.

The disciplinary procedure are agreed by the Trade Union and Respondent. Minor sanctions are given in practice to employees by an Investigator without a separate disciplinary hearing.

Given the minor nature of the breaches and the mitigating circumstances, I recommend the sanction applied is reduced to a 3 months verbal warning.

I recommend the sanction applied is reduced to a 3 months verbal warning.

Agreed procedures, fair procedures, breach of Sick-leave policies, minor, mitigating circumstances