Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Manager

A Radio Station

Representatives

 Emma Coffey Solicitor

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-00039634-001

07/09/2020

The Worker is employed as a manager since 21st February 2002. He is seeking the removal of a warning letter issued to him following an issue with another staff member about parking spaces. 

The Worker stated that he is a Manager and oversaw the parking. He just asked the Volunteer Mr. A to move his car as the parking spaces were limited. He said that the parking spaces are restricted during the week and you need a token to park. He said that there are plenty of spaces after 6 pm or at the weekends when the other offices are not open. He said that Mr A was a staff member for a number of years and then he became a volunteer and he understood he did not have a parking permit.

After asking him to move his car he noticed that Mr. A had not been coming in to the station. He telephoned him and texted him but got no reply. He enquired about his whereabouts from another member of staff and was told that he should know the reason he was not attending work. He then asked one of the presenters to contact Mr. A to find out what the problem was.  He was then called to a meeting with the HR committee to discuss a complaint received from Mr A concerning the request to move his car. He agreed that he had asked Mr. A to take out his car because it was during the week and the spaces were limited.  He denied that he was aggressive to Mr. A or told him not to come back to the station again.  The HR committee told him that they had a number of witness to talk to and that they would have a further meeting. Mr A stated that he had a parking token which was given to him by the station manager. The Worker stated that he checked with the Manager and that was not the case.

The Worker said that he was looking to get thing back on track and to resolve the issue as he wanted Mr. A back to the station.  He suggested he would write a letter to Mr. A which he did but it was rejected by Mr. A.

The HR Committee then drafted a report to the Board and a further meeting was held with him by the HR Committee. Despite asking for mediation to resolve the issue with Mr. A, the Board referred the dispute to the formal process under the Disciplinary procedures. The Hr Committee told him that there could be no informal resolution after the matter was moved to a formal investigation.

He was called to a formal investigation meeting on the 7th October by the HR Committee. He attended the meeting, but he was of the view that not all the documentation had been provided to him particularly the notes of the meetings with witness during the informal investigation. He again asked for mediation at this meeting, but it was refused as the disciplinary procedure had already started.  He suggested that the meeting be adjourned so he could get all the documentation.

He said that he was called to a further meeting on the 15th October and 21st October which he did not attend as he was going to take a complaint to the Board. He said that he was also seeking mediation. The next thing that happened is that he got a formal written warning from the Board. 

He said that he appealed the warning and he attended an appeal hearing but the decision to issue the warning was upheld. 

The Worker is seeking that the matter should be resolved by the Board appointing an external mediator and that the written warning be taken away.

The employer is a Radio Station employing 5 full time staff including the Worker who is the manager station. The Board of Directors consists of 12 voluntary members.

In July 2019, Mr A who is a volunteer wrote to the Board of Directors setting out details of a complaint about the Worker which took place on 29 May 2019. The complaint concerned a request to Mr A to remove his car and an allegation that the Worker told Mr. A not to come back to the station.  The Board at the next Board meeting agreed that the company grievance procedure would be activated and that the HR Committee would deal with the matter on behalf of the Board.

The parties reviewed the disciplinary procedure and the Worker was emailed received on 6th August 2019 inviting him to attend an initial investigation meeting on the 15th August, copies of correspondence from Mr. A and a witness were attached to that email.  In attendance at that meeting was the HR Committee and the Worker, the station manager. It was explained to him that this was an initial investigation meeting to discuss the allegations made by Mr A and supported by a witness.

Following this meeting the HR Committee spoke to Mr. A on 21st August 2019 to discuss his complaint and to explore if the matter could be resolved in an informal manner. Mr A mentioned another witness who he said had heard much of the conversation between himself and Mr A. The HR Committee spoke to that witness on 22nd August 2019.

A further meeting was held with the Worker on 26th August 2019 to a follow up on the issues raised in meetings with Mr. A and his witness. The HR Committee specifically wanted to raise the fact that the Worker had stated in his meeting on the 15th August 2019 that the car that was blocked in belonged to one of the receptionists. Prior to this meeting the HR Committee members spoke to both receptionists and neither could recall being blocked in.

This was put to the Worker who responded to this to say that he thought it was them, but he must have been mistaken, he then proceeded to say that he couldn't recall who it might have been and speculated that it must have been someone else who was in the station. The Committee confirmed to the Worker that Mr. A had a parking permit which had never been revoked, had no expiry date and was still valid.  He was also told that the witness supported Mr. A version of events in relation to the incident but the Worker rejected this as fabrication stating that there were differences between the witness and himself.

 In that meeting possible resolutions to the situation were discussed. The Worker said he was still open to a face to face meeting with Mr A.   or to some form of mediation to resolve the issue. The HR Committee discussed with the Worker the possibility of him writing a letter to Mr A and depending on the response this could lead to a face to face meeting.

The Worker wrote a letter to Mr A which was not accepted by him.

An Interim Report on the investigation was presented to the Board of Management on 24th September 2019 by the HR Committee recommending a formal investigation under the procedures. On foot of the recommendation of the HR Committee the investigation was to be completed as soon as possible in line with the procedures and that the Worker would be given every opportunity to respond to the complaint and rejection of his letter by Mr A. The Board ratified the HR Committee decision to continue to investigate the complaint in line with the disciplinary procedures outlined in the employees handbook.

The HR Committee provided the Worker with all the correspondence in relation to the initial investigation and called him to a formal investigation meeting on 7th October 2019.

Given that Mr. A’s version of the incident had been supported by a staff member and an informal resolution was not possible the HR Committee informed the Worker that they were now dealing with the matter formally under the disciplinary procedures. He was told that he was being given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. The Worker raised two questions. The first question was what Mr A wanted and he was advised that he had not made any demands as such. The second question referred to the correspondence sent to him and said that he would not engage with the process until he got all correspondence. It was pointed out to him by the HR committee that he had received all the correspondence.  He was informed that there was no signed statement from the witness but that there were minutes from the Committees meeting with the witness which had been furnished to him. At this point the Worker stood up and left the meeting saying he would be sending an email.

The HR Committee decided to call the Worker to a further meeting and it was agreed that the internal minutes of the HR meeting regarding the complaint could be shared with him. Later, the same day the HR Committee received an email from him requesting an external mediator. In response to that email, the HR Committee told him that they had gone beyond the stage of mediation and could not grant the request. Also, another opportunity to meet on 19 October 2019 was extended to the Worker as well as attaching documents previously sent and minutes from the HR Committee meeting from the initial informal investigation.

The Worker asked the company to cover the cost of engaging a solicitor which was refused. He was asked to confirm attendance on the 15th October and he responded saying that he could not meet the HR Committee as he was sending a complaint to the Board and that he no longer had confidence in the HR Committee.  The Board of Directors never received a written or verbal complaint from him despite being invited to do so at the Board meeting of the 15th October 2019.

The HR Committee extended a final invitation to the Worker to a meeting on 21st October 2019 and reminded him of all the employee obligations to engage with the procedure as per the employee handbook. He failed to confirm his attendance and no further correspondence was received from him regarding the matter.

Given that the HR Committee believed that it acted fairly and reasonably in carrying out the Board’s sanctioned duties and that after 3 further invites, being on the 10th October, 19 October and 21st October, the Worker failed and/or neglected to engage with them. Based on the information received and the investigations that had taken place in accordance with the internal grievance and disciplinary procedures of the company, the HR Committee concluded that his behaviour was unacceptable in respect of the complaint from Mr A and given his refusal to engage with the disciplinary the HR Committee recommended that a written be given to the Worker and this recommendation was made to the Board. The Board sanctioned that the warning be in written format and a written warning was sent to him on 9th December 2019.

The Board received a request for a formal appeal from the Worker in early January 2020. The Board decided that an independent person would be appointed to hear the appeal. The treasurer of the Board, a practicing solicitor, make enquiries with independent, suitably qualified third parties to see if they would be available in early January 2020 to preside over an appeal. A Barrister was available, and he was appointed by the Board to hear the appeal. The appeal hearing was held on the 10th January. The initial appeal hearing was heard, and a number of queries were raised by the Worker in that hearing which were furnished Board of Directors and replies were issued to the Appeals Officer. The Worker contacted the Appeals Officer after receiving the replies to say that he needed further time to respond.  A notification was sent to both parties by the Appeals Officer confirm that he would furnish his conclusions on 15th June 2020, this was to allow either party to make last contributions in writing to him before making his decisions. A letter of determination was furnished to the Chairperson of the Board on 2nd July 2020 dismissing the appeal and upholding the sanction.  The Worker wrote to the Board on 21st July 2020 requesting that an independent person follows up on his grievance with agreed terms of reference and an agreed timetable. He alleged that substantial queries about the completeness of the Boards correspondence had not been addressed. The Workers correspondence was acknowledged. He then decided to refer the matter to the WRC.

In conclusion the Employer states that there were proper and fair procedures afforded to the Worker during the investigation of the grievance and the disciplinary procedure. He was given every opportunity to engage in the process and failed to do so in a genuine manner and in taking into consideration all information received from both sides the HR Committee, came to the reasonable conclusion that a written warning was appropriate. Furthermore, in order to protect the Workers right to an independent and fair appeal the Board of Directors undertook to engage in the services of an independent third party to hear the appeal.

I note that the dispute between the Worker and Mr. A about the parking incident was moved from an informal investigation to a formal investigation without exploring fully other options such as mediation. The escalation of the matter to a formal investigation was not necessary until all other options had been exhausted.  I recommend that the warning letter be removed from the Worker’s file and that the Board appoint an external mediator to resolve the dispute.  

 I recommend that the warning letter be removed from the Worker’s record and that the Board appoint an external mediator to resolve the dispute between the parties.  

Industrial Relations Act, Section 13, Dispute