FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF IRELAND, BANK OF IRELAND GROUP PLC DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00021806 CA-00028603-001. On 5 October 2020, the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: - “I recommend that the Claimant reflects on the last three years and seeks to move forward in the direction of consolidation of her career at the bank. I find that application of a final written warning on an erstwhile clean record and a prevailing climate of "loose practice" was overly harsh and I recommend that the Employer commute this to a written warning for 12 months since expired on 13 December 2018.” The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Decision to the Labour Court on 13 November 2020, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A virtual Labour Court hearing took place on 21 January 2021.
The Trade Union set out that the ‘crux’ of the matter was the fact that, in 2017, following an investigation carried out as part of the disciplinary procedure, the Claimant was place on Special Paid Leave for a period of fifteen weeks. The Trade Union submitted that this decision penalised the Claimant unfairly and was unreasonable having regard to the matters at issue involving the Claimant. The Employer submitted that the decision was fair, was made in accordance with long standing procedures and followed an investigation which was conducted in accordance with procedures in place in the Bank. The basis for the decision, as provided for in the procedures was, according to the Employer, to protect the reputation and position of the Bank. The Trade Union also submitted that, while the parties are currently engaged in dialogue in order to secure a return to work for the Claimant, the options being put forward by the Bank were not reasonable in all of the circumstances. The Trade Union also submitted that it believed that a medical assessment carried out in recent days would conclude that the Claimant is unfit to return for work at this time. The Court notes that the decision to place the Claimant on special paid leave in 2017 was made in accordance with the policies and procedures then in place in the Bank. The Court also notes that although the Trade Union and the Bank have engaged recently to review those procedures, no amendment to the framework surrounding Special Paid Leave or the procedures attaching thereto have been amended. The Court notes that the Claimant suffered no financial loss as a result of being placed on Special Paid Leave. Finally, the Court notes that the decision to place the Claimant on Special Paid Leave was reviewed shortly after it had been implemented and during the period of the conduct of the disciplinary procedure then in train. That review did not alter the decision to place the Claimant on Special Paid Leave. When the first stage of the disciplinary procedure was concluded the Claimant was immediately invited to return to work. The Bank submitted to the Court that it was anxious for the Claimant to return to work and that it was prepared to offer the Claimant a return to work at her former level of Band 1 in her former branch. The Court notes that the Claimant does not regard that offer as reasonable. In any event, the Claimant submitted that she anticipated she would be assessed as medically unfit for work in the near future. In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the decision to place the Claimant on Special Paid Leave in 2017 should be accepted as reasonable and in full accord with procedures then in place in the Bank. The Court further recommends that when the Claimant is declared medically fit to return to work she should return to work to take up a Band 1 position in the location where she previously worked or as near as possible thereto. The parties should engage at the appropriate time to achieve this outcome. In making this decision the Court notes that any disciplinary penalty which was imposed upon the Claimant has expired and has been expunged from her record. The Court so decides.
NOTE |
