Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Administrative Officer

Hospice

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-00032704-001

04/12/2019

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

CA-00032704-002

04/12/2019

The Worker is employed as an Administrative Officer since 2006. She is paid €44,773 per annum. She has appealed a sanction of written warning and has alleged unfair treatment by her employer during the procedure. She is seeking the removal of the warning from her file and compensation for the unfair treatment. The Employer rejected this claim.

Prior to this incident that led to the issuing of the warning she felt that she was being treated less favourably. She was undertaking some refurbishment at home and needed some cardboard boxes to pack her books. She knew that there were plenty of them at work so on 18th April 2019 she asked her manager to borrow some boxes. She got permission to take the boxes and her manager also advised her where she could order them directly from the supplier. On Easter Monday 22nd April she collected the boxes via the fire exit having parked at the main entrance to the building. She also walked her dog around the premises. There was a conversation with an employee about putting the dog on a leash. She returned from holidays on 29th April and was told by her manager that she did not have access to the office and she was in breach of policies and procedures. Later that day she was asked a number of questions by the Director of Nursing about the incident on 22nd. She was advised that HR would be consulted to see what if any disciplinary action might follow. She met the Director of Nursing again on 1st May. She met HR on 8th May to discuss the incident of 22nd. Nothing was put in writing and she was not given the right to representation. At this meeting HR was of the opinion that she was on the premises on 22nd without permission, illegally entering the building leaving through the fire door, taking something from the building, there was an allegation that she left the fire door open and a breach of Data Protection. She was invited to a disciplinary hearing and was accused of “taking a number of boxes from the Department”. The interview was chaired by the same HR person that conducted the investigation. The only documentation was the statement of the Services Manager. She was represented by her Union Official who objected to the Chair and she recused herself. The Worker pointed out that she had permission to borrow the boxes. There was no statement from the Manager. The outcome was the she was issued with a written warning to last 9 months on her file. There was an additional allegation of not having authorisation to enter the building. She appealed the sanction internally and added a grievance about how she was treated. Both appeals were rejected.

It is the Worker’s position that fair procedures and natural justice were not observed during the process,

1) there was no proper investigation: allegations were unclear, no statements /documents given to her including the Services Manager’s statement available to HR but not to her,

2) there was a lack of transparent allegations: it was not clear if the Worker was accused of stealing, a further allegation was added during the process that of entering the building.

3) the use of CCTV: it was not clear why the Employer reviewed the CCTV footage.

4) the investigation was not thorough enough: Nobody properly interviewed, the Services Manager’s statement was dated 7th May concerning an incident of 22nd April.

5) there was an unreasonable assessment of evidence: The Manager never made a statement, yet they accepted her position not the Worker.

The Employer failed to take into account her unblemished record. They treated her unfairly, they blocked her access to her place of work. The enquiry was casual and informal. None of the questions that she put to the Employer was answered. The second panel was not informed about the policies in place. Her husband was refused to accompany her as emotional support. This process was dragged on for 6 months and it could easily have been viewed as a misunderstanding.

On 22nd April 2019 the Worker attended the premises, this was most unusual as she was not scheduled to be at work as it was a Public Holiday. Security Staff observed her enter the locked building and remove boxes from there. She then walked her dog on the premises. The Building Services Manager made a statement that he had been informed of this. He reviewed the CCTV footage and confirmed the identification of the Worker and that she removed boxes and their lids from the premises. HR met with her on 8th May and outlined the allegations that had been received. The Worker confirmed that she had taken the boxes but gave no indication when she might return them. She advised HR that she had permission from her Manager to take them. Her Manager denies this but, in any case, the Manager would not have had the authority to give such permission. She was then invited to a disciplinary hearing for 5th June 2019. She was given the right to representation and a copy of the disciplinary procedure. She was represented by her Union Official. She had requested that her husband attend for emotional support, but this was denied as its against policy. She and her representative were given the opportunity to view the CCTV footage and to read a prepared statement. She explained that she had been using the boxes to store book while her house was being redecorated. The outcome was that it was decided that she had no valid authorisation to remove the boxes and so she was issued with a first written warning. She was given the right of appeal. She lodged a separate grievance about the conduct of the disciplinary procedure. Her grievance and appeal were dealt with separately. She again represented by her Union Official. The appeal was not upheld and she availed of an opportunity for a second appeal. This appeal was not upheld. It is the Employer’s position that the written warning was fair and reasonable and she was afforded fair process and the sanction was appropriate. While she has asserted that she had permission to take the boxes it is the Employer’s position that no staff member has permission to give away company property.   She did not return the boxes until July. She showed no regret or understanding. So, the sanction was fair in all circumstances.

CA 32704-001

Claim: “I received the written warning on 14th of June 2019 which I appealed through the grievance process, but to no avail. My employer did not follow fair procedures, did not take into account all circumstances and the sanction was unwarranted or at least too severe”.

I note that the Worker was observed on CCTV entering the building on a Public Holiday, 22nd April 2019, when it was closed and she was not supposed to be there.

I note that she was observed taking boxes from that building by the fire exit and putting them in her car.

I note that Security staff appraised the Building Services Manager of this and he confirmed that this was the Worker.

I note that the Worker was on a week’s holidays following this and returned to work on 29th April 2019.

I note that her Manager spoke to her on 29th and a conflict arose about permission to take boxes.

I note that the Worker was spoken to on 29th by the Director of Nursing where the Worked stated that she had permission to take the boxes.

I note that HR spoke to the Worker on 8th May where the Worker stated that she had permission from her Manager to take boxes.

I note that HR did not speak with her Manager but reviewed the email sent on 29th April from the Manager which stated: the Worker had no authority to take the boxes, the Worker confirmed that she took 40 boxes, that the Worker exited by the fire exit and left the door unlocked which was found by the Manager the next day, as multiple breaches had occurred she recommended that HR deal with it.

I note that at the hearing the Worker stated that it was 20 not 40 boxes, that the manager having given permission to take the boxes she then gave her the contact details of the box supplier and had checked with them the cost involved.

I note that she denied leaving the door open. This did not feature in the written warning.

I have considered the matters in dispute and I make the following conclusions.

Why would the manager having given permission to take the boxes then go to the trouble of contacting the box supplier and getting the costs involved and give the Worker these details.

Why did the Worker not take these boxes when finishing up the previous week-end, why come into the building on a Public Holiday when nobody was in the building, why use the fire exit door to remove the boxes, why was there a conflict on the number of boxes removed, why were the boxes not returned immediately when this matter was raised by management on 29th April, they were not returned until July. Why did the manager not say in the email of 29th “ permission was not asked and permission was not given to take the boxes, she stated the Worker had no authority to remove the boxes, which is a general statement.

On the balance of probability, I conclude that the Worker had not permission to take the boxes, that it was her intention to borrow them with a view of returning them when the redecoration was finished in her home.

Therefore, I find that the sanction of a written warning was appropriate and it should stand.

CA 32704-001

For the above stated reasons, I recommend that the sanction of a written warning was appropriate and warranted, it should stand.

Seeking the removal of a written warning