LCR22219

DECISION:

Background to the Dispute

This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal by Mr Ken Grant (‘the Worker’) from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00021087, dated 6 August 2019) made under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

The Notice of Appeal was received on 23 August 2019. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 7 February 2020.

Factual Matrix

The Worker has been employed as a chef by Our Lady’s Hospice and Care Services (‘the Company’) since May 2006. He, along with two other colleagues, was involved in an incident on 22 September 2017 in the catering area. Two female managers made complaints under the Company’s Dignity at Work Policy arising from that incident. Those complaints gave rise to an investigation. Two allegations made against the Worker were upheld. The Worker was then subject to a disciplinary process which resulted in a written warning. The Worker appealed that sanction. The sanction was initially upheld. The Worker invoked a second appeal stage following which the original sanction was reduced to a verbal warning. That warning had expired prior to the matter coming on for hearing before the Court.

Worker’s Submission

The Worker submits that the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process applied to him were flawed and that, as a consequence, he was denied natural justice in the process. He specifically asserts that the allegations were not clearly or accurately put to him and changed at different stages throughout the process. He also states that he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine his accusers and that the process from start to finish was subject to inexcusable and protracted delays. He is seeking compensation from the Court for the alleged breaches of fair procedures and the Company’s delay in concluding both the Dignity at Work investigation and the disciplinary process.

Company’s Submission

The Company submits that the verbal warning applied to the Worker has expired and has been expunged from his personnel file and that, therefore, the within dispute is moot and should be decided by the Court on that point alone without the need to consider the substance of the dispute. In making this submission, the Company cites two previous decisions of the Court – LCR28162 and LCR21763.

In the alternative, if the Court is not minded to accept the Company’s preliminary submission, the Company submits that it dealt with the Worker in a fair and reasonable manner at all times such that he was afforded the benefits of natural justice throughout the disciplinary process. In the Company’s submission, the Worker was fully apprised of the allegations against him, afforded an appropriate opportunity to respond to those allegations and his response was fully considered prior to any decision being taken in the disciplinary process. The Company’s representative stated that the fact that the initial written warning imposed on the Worker was reduced on appeal to a verbal warning indicates that the process was a fair one.

Decision

The Court finds that the factual situations that gave rise to the disputes in LCR28162 and LCR21763 were very different from the facts underlying the within dispute and that, therefore, it is not appropriate to follow the previous decisions cited by the Company in this case.

The Court notes that the initial incident occurred on 22 September 2017 and the Worker’s second appeal concluded on 12 April 2019. At first sight, this appears to have been a very protracted process. However, it is common case that delays to the process were occasioned by the absence of a number of protagonists, including the Worker, from time to time, on annual leave, sick leave, etc. It does not appear to the Court that any disadvantage or detriment was visited on the Worker arising from the inevitable delays that occurred in bringing matters to finality.

Having carefully considered the very detailed and comprehensive written and verbal submissions of both Parties, the Court finds that the allegations against him were fairly put to the Worker and he was afforded every opportunity to respond to them. His responses were fully considered at the investigation and disciplinary stages. The sanction ultimately imposed on the Worker (and now expired and expunged from his personnel file) was not disproportionate in all the circumstances.

The Court, therefore, upholds the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer in full and the appeal fails.

The Court so decides.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
MK______________________
8 May 2020Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.