Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Operator

Manufacturing

Representatives

Shonagh Byrne SIPTU

Niamh Daly IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00042939-001

08/03/2021

The referral relates to the severity and duration of the final warning of 2 years which is viewed as unfair based on all the facts and circumstances of this incident.

The worker has long service and a good record with the employer. The severity of the warning based on the circumstances that gave rise to the warning is unjust; particularly having regard to the service of the worker. The stress of having such a warning held on file for so long against the backdrop of an overall record that is good is unfair.

The role of the adjudicator is not to second guess the decision makers who fairly and impartially investigated the matter and applied the sanction as detailed in the company/union agreement. The employer referred to the agreement and clause that prescribes 2 years for a final warning, which was informed by the Labour Court recommending that “Formal Warnings and all Final Written Warnings should have a duration of 12 months and 24 months respectively before they are removed from an employee’s record.” That recommendation was made in the context of a contentious matter at that time on or about November 2007

Final warnings are typically for 12 months and this was accepted by the Employer. However, the agreement is very clear that a final warning is for 2 years. In this context the employer’s decision must be viewed. However, every dispute is different and there are mitigating circumstances in this case that should be considered. The worker has long service and a good record.

The parties made good progress at the hearing and both moved very significantly. The worker recognises the need of the company to impose a sanction; however, disputes the duration of 2 years having regard to the potential impact on his long service and future employability. The company also recognised the unique circumstances of this case and made a good faith concession to reduce the duration imposed and the what the agreement prescribes.

While both parties made very significant movement on their original positions, it was not possible to close the gap between them and reach a consensus.

Both parties have moved very significantly. The worker wishes the duration to be reduced by half and the employer wishes for the final warning to stand and is willing to move on some reduction but not by a year. Movement concerning the duration of the final warning was made by both parties based on the unique facts of this case. The norm within industry is 12 months; however, there is no universal practice and different employments would and can have different agreements. This recommendation is made based on the circumstances of this case and based on what is fair and equitable. I recommend that the final warning should be amended to read that the behaviour was unacceptable conduct and that the disciplinary sanction of a final written warning is upheld and will be issued which will be effective for 15 months.

Final Warning -Duration