LCR22274

1.An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No(s)ADJ-00025762 CA-00032704-001

BACKGROUND:

2.This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 23 March 2020 the Adjudication Officer issued his Recommendation. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 15 April 2020 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 9 October 2020, the following is the decision of the Court:


DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of an employee against an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation which found against her claim. The Claimant referred a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission concerning her employer’s handling of a disciplinary process which she had been subjected to. She contended that she had been unfairly treated by her employer during the disciplinary process and had lodged a grievance under the Grievance Policy to her employer following the imposition of a disciplinary sanction issued to her in June 2019. The issue of the disciplinary sanction is not before the Court and the Court notes that it has since expired and has been expunged from her personnel file.

With regard to the grievance raised, the Union submitted that no proper investigation was carried out before the Claimant was accused of a wrongdoing; there was a lack of transparency with regard to the allegations made against her; the use of CCTV footage was inappropriate in the circumstances and different reasons were advanced for its use; the investigation was not sufficiently thorough and there was an unreasonable assessment of evidence as a crucial witness was not interviewed before the disciplinary sanction was imposed. Furthermore, she raised the fact that on return from annual leave in April 2019, access to her working space was blocked when the access code was changed.

The employer denied the allegations made, and while accepting that there were some flaws in the procedure, it contended that overall the process was conducted in a balanced and fair manner; the use of CCTV footage was used in accordance with its “Policy on Closed Circuit Television”; the sanction imposed was reasonable in the circumstances and in any event the issue was now moot as the warning had expired and been removed from her file.

Both parties provided extensive documentation on the issues before the Court. The Claimant has been a long-standing employee of the Service, the Court finds it regretful that the circumstances which lead to the disciplinary process and subsequent complaints could not have been dealt with in a more appropriate manner by both sides. Had the Claimant secured formal permission to remove boxes and had she informed management and security of her intention to do so prior to 22nd April 2019 and had the employer engaged in an informal conversation with her before accusations were made, then matters may have taken a different route. However, as the incident appeared to give the impression that sensitive data was being removed from the premises in an overt manner, then it is somewhat understandable that the matter was dealt with in a formal way from the outset. While it is not denied that there were some flaws in the procedure, the Court notes that the employer has learnt from the experience and is making appropriate changes to the process for the future. On balance the Court substantially concurs with the detailed findings of the Adjudication Officer and concurs with his findings.

However, the Court finds that the blocking of access to the Claimant’s workplace in the circumstances as outlined and the continuation of that denial of access, was an inappropriate action taken by the employer. While the employer clearly has a duty to protect its sensitive data, the matter could have been handled without causing such distress to the Claimant.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Caroline Jenkinson
DC	______________________
15 October 2020	Deputy Chairman