Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Store Manager

A Bridal Boutique

Representatives

Dermot O'Loughlin, Alpha Employment Representation Services

Company Director 

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-00034696-001

17/02/2020

The complainant is employed as a manager of a bridal boutique which is part of a company with a network of stores across the UK, and with stores in Dublin and Belfast.   The complainant commenced as the manager of the Dublin store on March 26th 2018. In November 2019, the complainant’s manager had concerns about standards in her store and on January 3rd 2020, she attended a disciplinary meeting. On January 6th, she was issued with a written warning concerning her performance and her staff management. She argues that the written warning was “harsh and extreme given the totality of the circumstances” of the disciplinary process.

Timeline

October 18th 2019

The complainant’s store was visited by a senior manager from the company’s head office in the UK.   The complainant’s grandfather had died a few days previously and she explained to the manager that she wasn’t in good form on the day of the visit. At the hearing, the complainant said that the manager assumed that the store was always the way she found it on October 18th. Two days later, she was advised that she was being put on a performance improvement plan (PIP).

November 24th 2019

The complainant’s line manager, who is a regional manager, visited the Dublin store. She didn’t discuss the PIP with the complainant.

December 2nd 2019

The complainant was invited to a disciplinary meeting which was scheduled for the following day in Glasgow. The meeting actually took place on December 4th. The complainant was not accompanied and the meeting went on for six hours.   The complainant was then invited to another disciplinary meeting in Dublin.

December 22nd 2019

The complainant was on leave from December 21st until the 27th; however, on the 22nd, she sent an email to the company expressing her reservations about the short notice of the disciplinary meetings and the failure of the company to give her an opportunity to be represented. She did not return from leave, but was absent due to illness from December 28th until January 16th.

January 3rd 2020

At the disciplinary meeting which she attended with Mr O’Loughlin as her representative, the complainant was informed that a decision had been made to issue her with a written warning, which she received on January 8th.   The warning is extremely detailed, running to almost four pages. The letter states that the senior manager who chaired the disciplinary hearing concluded that:

§    The complainant had not carried out the orders of her manager in maintaining the required standard of presentation in her store;

§    She had not ensured that health and safety procedures were followed, resulting in a failed health and safety audit;

§    She did not properly manage the absence of other employees.

January 28th 2020

The complainant appealed against the written warning; however, on February 13th, the company upheld the decision.

February 14th 2020

The complainant was suspended from work following further allegations concerning her performance.   Following a disciplinary meeting on July 8th, the company decided that no action would result and the complainant returned to work on July 20th.

The Complainant’s Argument Concerning the Written Warning

The complainant attended the initial disciplinary meeting on December 4th without representation and with no time to prepare a response to the company’s allegations concerning her performance. At the hearing, she said that she understood that she had a right to be accompanied, but that she “just wanted to get it over with.” She asked Mr McLoughlin to accompany her at the January meeting. She was not offered an opportunity to question the company’s witnesses on December 4th or January 3rd. At the meeting on January 3rd, a further allegation about a health and safety audit failure was added to the company’s list of concerns. Her store had failed the audit on December 4th, when the complainant wasn’t there, as she was in Glasgow at a regional meeting and the disciplinary meeting.

At the disciplinary meeting on January 3rd, the manager made an error about the specific stage of the warning being issued, referring to it as a “stage 1” warning.   The complainant contends that a verbal warning, at stage 1 of the disciplinary process, would have been more appropriate. The complainant feels that the company had a problem with the level of her salary and that their intention was to “manage her out.”

The complainant argues that the written warning is too severe. She feels that it takes time for a relationship to develop with a new manager and that they needed time to learn to adapt. She said that a way of resolving the company’s concerns would have been to get her to liaise with a manager who had exceptional store standards.

The Reason for the Written Warning

The respondent’s case regarding the reason for the issuing of a written warning is contained in the detailed letter to the complainant of January 6th 2020. It appears that on store visits in July 2019, the regional manager found the standards of cleanliness and presentation “quite poor.” In a follow-up visit in August, some improvements were observed, but the manager still had concerns. On November 23rd, the complainant did not follow the shop closing protocols, and she said that she had planned to do the tasks the following day. The letter also addresses the complainant’s adherence to health and safety in the store.   At an audit on December 4th, the store failed the audit, with a mark of 46%. Thirdly, the letter sets out the management’s concern with the complainant’s failure to correctly follow return-to-work protocols when staff are absent, and failure to address excessive absences.

At the hearing, the company director said that the issues of concern about standards in the store were raised with the complainant in July and August and she had time to address the problems before the visit of the manager on October 18th.   The concern about standards in the store, coupled with the very poor mark in the health and safety audit and the failure to follow absence procedures, led to a decision to issue a written warning.

The Disciplinary Process

At the hearing, the company director agreed that the first disciplinary meeting on December 4th lasted for six hours. She said that, during the meeting, the complainant was permitted to take breaks.   The director said that she feels that the company has followed their disciplinary procedures and that the issuing of a written warning is a fair sanction in the circumstances.

Regarding the health and safety audit on December 4th, when the complainant was not in the store, the director said that the audit team would not have known that the complainant was at a meeting in the UK. She also said that it is not unreasonable for an audit to be done in the absence of a store manager.

To manage the relationship with the complainant for the future, mediation has been arranged between her and her regional manager, further training is being provided and a mentor will be appointed to support her development as a store manager.

I have considered the submissions of both sides in this grievance and I understand the company’s rationale for issuing a first written warning to the complainant. It is my view that the performance and management issues that were raised at the disciplinary meetings in December 2019 and January 2020 were serious enough for a written warning to be issued.

It is important however, to recognise the objective of the disciplinary process. Over the years, aside from instances of gross misconduct, it has become established that warnings are progressive, starting often with the euphemistically named “counselling,” then moving to a to verbal warning and then generally two written warnings before dismissal is contemplated. I am concerned that, prior to January 2020, no disciplinary action was taken to address the management’s concerns with the complainant’s performance. It is my view that, if a verbal warning had been issued in July or August, the complainant may have taken action to avoid any further sanction.

It is my view therefore, that the written warning issued on January 6th 2020 was not unreasonable, but that, as a sanction, it was too late. I appreciate the difficulties for employees and managers to have a constructive day to day relationship between two countries and this must have contributed to the failure to observe and address the problems early on. I note that actions are planned in the form of training and mentoring to resolve these issues.

To resolve the complainant’s grievance, I recommend that the written warning issued to the complainant is removed from her file after nine months, on September 5th 2020.

First written warning, severity of sanction