Complainant

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Store Manager

 A Retail Electronics Chain.

Representatives

  Self - Represented

Declined to attend in Person -correspondence received from Nap Keeling of  Ken Kennedy Solicitors

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-00034627-001

13/02/2020

The issues in contention concern a Disciplinary & Suspension process taken by the Employer Company against a Store Manager.

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in March 2013 and has been there since. His monthly rate of pay was, at the date of the Hearing, €2096.15 per month.

The Worker in this case was called to an unannounced meeting with Regional management and Loss Prevention control on the 7th February 2020.  A lengthy series of allegations were made by management concerning his operation of the branch of the Chain for which he is responsible. At this meeting he was suspended on full Pay. The meeting was characterised as an Investigation meeting by Management.

Following the meeting the Worker requested further details of the allegations made, witnesses and supporting documentation. There was little productive in replies from management. However, on the 21st May the HR Manager sent a lengthy e mail to the Worker. She reassured him that he was completely exonerated from any suggestions of Gross Misconduct and dismissal was not an option being considered by the Employer. She welcomed him back to work on the 25th May 2020.

The Worker returned on the 25th and has worked there, since, without any issues.

While accepting that he was never at any loss of income during the Suspension he feels that he should be compensated for the stress the issues caused him.

The Employer choose not to attend the Hearing. They were on notice and indicated via their Solicitor that they were not attending.

3:1      General

As this case in under the Industrial Relations Act,1969 the Adjudication Officer is charged with Recommending an outcome that will lead to a settlement of a dispute.  In this case the Worker suffered no loss on income, being on Paid Suspension and resumed work on the 25th May 2020.

The Worker concerned pointed to the, what he felt, were grave liberties in procedures and good HR practices in the process leading to his suspension. He produced extensive correspondence and e mails in support.

Reading the correspondence, I found it hard to see how the rules and procedures recommended in the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 - SI 146 of 2000 – Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures were observed by the Management in place at that time in February.

However, it appeared that, later, new Management eyes reviewed the case and the suspension was lifted and all allegations withdrawn.

The Worker was at no financial loss and his position was never formally endangered.

The only issue was the upset and emotional distress caused to the Worker by the lengthy suspension.

3:2      Legal Precedents

Legal precedent in the area of suspensions cautions all managements to be especially careful when using Suspensions as a tool in any disciplinary / investigation case.

The headline High Court case is Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Reilly [2015] IEHC 241

Here Noonan J stated

“The suspension of an employee, whether paid or unpaid, is an extremely serious measure which can cause irreparable damage to his or her reputation and standing. It is potentially capable of constituting a significant blemish on the employee’s employment record with consequences for his or her future career.”

3:3        Industrial Relations Act, 1969 - Conclusion & Recommendation

The Worker in this case did not suffer any direct loss of income and was in effect reinstated, without blemish, when it appears “new eyes” from Senior Management looked at the case.

The suspension was from the 7th February to the 25th May -almost four months. Even allowing for COVID 19 shut downs etc this was a very difficult period for the Worker. The normal rules of Natural Justice and Si 146 of 2000 – Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures do not seem to have been, initially, employed by the first Suspending Managers.

Accordingly, and bearing in mind the High Court case referenced above I recommend that a once off compensation payment of €750 be made as a gesture of good will to the Worker.

As this is a Compensation payment Recommended by the WRC and is not in any way renumeration or wages it is, subject to clearance from the Revenue Commissioners, a Tax-Free payment.

Suspension, Compensation for Suspension, Reinstatement.