Employee

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Airport Ramp Agent

Airport Ground Services provider

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

Ruth Heenan

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-00034520-001

07/02/2020

The employee is employed as Ramp Agent with the employer. The employment commenced on 01/08/2017. The employee’s rate of pay is €11.56 per hour and works 33 hours per week.   On 07/08/2019 the employee was allocated to a flight. She advised her team leader (Mr A) that she was due to finish at 17.30. The team leader said she could leave at 17.15. A second team leader (Ms B) was also on the flight. An incident took place between Ms B and the employee.   Arising from this a workplace investigation took place. This resulted in disciplinary action been taken and the employee was issued with a verbal warning. This sanction was upheld on appeal.

The employee is seeking to have a recommendation that the warning was unwarranted and that she should be rewarded for the unnecessary stress and anxiety caused by this matter.

The employee was on duty on 07/08/2020. She was allocated to a flight and she advised her Team Leader (Mr A) that she was due to finish at 17.30. As the flight was delayed Mr A advised the employee that she could go back to the canteen as she was due to finish soon. Mr A asked Ms B to ask the employee to walk back as they needed the vehicle known as an ETB to be available for an incoming flight. The employee was sitting in one of those ETB’s and Ms B used a hand signal to indicate that the employee should walk back.   The hand signal was used as ear protectors are worn in the ramp environment due to the surrounding noise levels.  

An interaction took place between Ms B and the employee. It was reported by Ms B that this interaction became abusive and that there was shouting and screaming involved. The employee disputes this and submits that she has carried out her duties and responsibilities with professionalism and diligence.

Arising from the incident the employer conducted an investigation which resulted in a disciplinary hearing. This resulted in the employee being issued with a verbal warning which would remain in force for a period of six months in line with the employer’s disciplinary policy. This sanction was upheld on appeal.

It was submitted on behalf of the employee that the employer was in breach of natural justice and acted unfairly and unreasonably and did not give proper consideration to the mitigating circumstances.

The warning was unfair as the employee had made her employer aware of the treatment she was receiving from her team leads and there was no investigation arising from this.   This grievance was fundamental in that she was open to addressing any issues through a mediation process, but her employer took her team leaders report and used this a basis for instituting disciplinary proceedings against her. At the hearing the employee outlined a number of examples whereby she feels that her employer treats her unfairly and this has a distressing effect on her.

The employer is a provider of ground and air cargo services. They provide the aviation industry with a broad range of services and products. The employee commenced employment on 01/08/2017 as a ramp agent. The duties of a ramp agent include the provision of under-wing ground support services to aircraft and includes the loading and unloading of baggage and cargo and sorting and transporting baggage to and from aircraft.

The employer raised a preliminary issue and contends that there is no longer “a live trade dispute at this point due to the expiration of this sanction.” The employer submitted a number of Labour Court cases in support of this:

LRC21862: In this case the Chair of the Court stated: “The disciplinary procedure of the Respondent provides that a final written warning shall ‘remain on a staff member’s personnel file for 12 months...   The Court finds therefore that the warning has no existence following the lapse of 12 months from date of issue.   The Court therefore concludes, in accordance with the disciplinary code under which it was issued, that the fact of a written warning having been issued to the Complainant has no meaning for the Complainant in terms of his employment of his relationship with his employer since 13th July 2018. In those circumstances the Court has decided that no decision it could make on the substance of the within matter could have any effect on the worker concerned.”

LCR21763: “The issue came before the Court on 25th July 2018 at that point the final written warning had expired and therefore the issue was moot. The Court cannot expunge something that no longer exists.

It was submitted on behalf of the employer that the sanction which the employee wishes to appeal has been expunged and removed from her file. In line with LCR21763, the issue is now moot, and, in line with LCR21862 the Adjudication Officer can make no decision on the substance of the matter.

In relation to the substantive matter the employer outlined the details of the incident which occurred on 07/08/2019. The employee was with the supervisor (Mr C) and when he advised the employee that she was assigned to a particular flight she responded that she was due to finish at 17.30 and would be leaving ad 16.55. Mr C advised that she could leave at 17.15.  When the flight was delayed Mr A advised Ms B to tell the employee that she could go back to the canteen as she was due to finish. Mr A also asked Ms B to ask the employee to walk back as they needed the EBT vehicle for the flight. Ms B done this using hand gestures which are the norm in the area due to the fact that ear protectors are worn due to the noise levels. Ms B reported that the employee left the EBT and became abusing and started cursing and screaming at her. This interaction was witnessed by Mr A.

Ms B submitted a complaint in relation to this matter and the employer established an investigation which was conducted by a manager. This investigator recommended “that the disciplinary process should be taken at that point.” A disciplinary hearing took place on 05/09/2019 and recommended that a written warning be issued to the employee. On 13/09/2019 the employee was issued with a verbal warning which “will remain on your file for 6 months, expiring on 13th March 2020.

The employee appealed this sanction and an appeal hearing took place on 24/09/2019. The outcome of this appeal was that the sanction was upheld.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the investigation and disciplinary and appeal processes were conducted fairly, and the employee was represented at all times. She was given an opportunity to provide details of her version of events and was aware of the matters was under consideration.

It was also submitted on behalf of the respondent that the claim should be dismissed.

Preliminary issue:

The employer’s representative raised a preliminary issue and contends that there is no longer “a live trade dispute at this point due to the expiration of this sanction.”   The employer submitted two Labour Court cases in support of this: LRC21862 and LCR21763 and the relevant parts quoted above.

The employee’s representative submitted that the employee had a right to be heard and noted LCR2068 where the Court held that where there was a conflict of evidence, an absence of corroborating evidence and an absence of an alleged victim the employer should not have pursued the matter further and in that case the Court held that a disciplinary sanction should not have been imposed. The employee’s representative also noted that his case was not just about the warning but the procedures which led to that warning.  

I have considered the submissions of both sides in relation to this matter. I have decided that there are sufficient grounds to hear the substantive matter as the employee has raised concerns about the failure to afford her the principles of natural justice and what she viewed as a flawed process which resulted in the disciplinary sanction.

CA-00034520-001

The employee and employer made comprehensive submissions in relation to the incident.   Additional details were provided at the hearing. There is agreement in relation to the details of the employee’s employment dates and also in relation to the date and time of the incident which is at the core of this matter.

I appreciate the difficulties for employees and managers to have a constructive day to day relationship in a challenging working environment such as in an under-wing ground support services area.

Having reviewed the submissions and heard the oral presentations from the parties I am satisfied that the employer operates a well organised suite of Human Resources policies and procedures. These are referenced in the employee’s contract of employee and detailed in a substantial employee handbook. I note that the disciplinary procedure, which is fundamental to this dispute, is aligned to the Industrial Relations Act 1990 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (Declaration) Order 2000.   The investigation carried out by the employer was fair and transparent and the employee was represented by a trade union representative. Detailed notes of the meetings were provided to the employee. The disciplinary hearing was also carried out in line with the principles outlined in the code of practice and the employee was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

An exemplary appeal process was also undertaken by the employer and the employee was given a significant opportunity to challenge the disciplinary sanction, outline her concerns and provide details of any mitigating circumstances relevant to the matter.

For those reasons I recommend that this complaint is not well founded.

I recommend that this complaint is not well founded.

Written warning.   Disciplinary procedures. Industrial Relations Act 1990 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.