Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

An employer

Representatives

  Self

Not in attendance.

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-00042858-001

04/03/2021

The employee is an Inventory Specialist who commenced employment with the respondent company on 30th March 2020. At the hearing of the complaint, he informed me that he had recently left the employment.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 4th March 2021.

The employee is not happy with the outcome of most recent H.R meeting as he feels it is biased.

The employee contends that he used all techniques for counting and auditing that were thought to him were appropriate in relation to areas and products in the most accurate and quickest way possible. He feels that he addressed all of the concerns in relation to the techniques used and gave his justifiable reasons to the questions which at present have been brought out of context giving the scenarios and other factors with liaising with staff in relation to further accusations that haven't been acknowledged.

There have been accusations he did not follow proper procedures when he did and did what was asked of him within natural reason when at work.

The employee feels these accusations within the workplace are putting the integrity of his

relationships with the company and staff at risk, they are also psychologically affecting him and affecting his position within the company and further could be weaponized against him at a later stage for dismissal.

The employee also stated that he is down with the loss of earnings and potential earnings going forward.

The employee has been employed with the Company since 26 March 2020. On 27 January 2021, the

Company received a complaint from one of its customers regarding the employee’s behaviour at a

stocktake the previous evening at a store in Sligo.

This complaint was initially investigated by JC, Area Manager. JC spoke with the respondent employer’s Team Leader in the Sligo store, the Sligo store manager, and three other respondent employees in relation to the employee’s behaviour at the stocktake on 26 January 2021 and also in relation to his counting techniques and previous training.

Following completion of the investigation, it was determined that it was appropriate to hold a disciplinary hearing.

By letter dated 1 February 2021 the employee was invited to a meeting on 3 February 2021 to provide him with an opportunity to set out his version of events. This meeting was conducted by the

Area Manager.

A follow up hearing took place on 24 February 2021. This was conducted by a Count Manager.

The employee was provided with formal notice that, following the disciplinary hearings, a final written warning had been issued to him under the Company’s disciplinary procedure.

By letter dated 4 March 2021 from the European HR Director. The employee was informed

of his right to appeal against this decision and he duly communicated his intention to do so by

email that same day.

The European HR Director wrote to the employee on 8 March 2021 and confirmed that the appeal

hearing was scheduled for 10 March 2021 and would be heard by a District Manager.

The District Manager (who had heard the appeal) issued his decision by letter to the employee dated 24 March 2021. The District Manager upheld the decision of a final written warning and

confirmed the warning would remain on the employee’s file until 3 March 2022. He also placed

the employee on a Performance Development Plan (PDP) to support him in improving his

performance, productivity and accuracy. It was also confirmed to the employee that, at the request of the customer, he would not work in any their stores during the period of the warning.

The employer is satisfied that it has afforded the employee the right to natural justice and fair procedures and, on that basis, the employer, via their legal representative, wishes to advise that it will not be participating in the remote hearing scheduled for 3 June 2021, nor does it agree to be bound by the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation. Via their legal representative the employer respectfully requests that the Adjudication Officer refer to the fact and substance of this submission within its recommendation and appends same to its written recommendation.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I would like to clarify what the role of an Adjudication Officer is in a complaint such as this. The Employment Appeals Tribunal in Looney & Co Ltd -v- Looney (UD 843/1984) stated:

“It is not for the EAT to seek to establish the guilt or innocence of the claimant nor is it for the EAT to indicate or consider whether we in the employer’s position would have acted as it did in its investigation or concluded as it did or decided as it did, as to do so would be to substitute our own mind and decisions for that of the employer.  Our responsibility is to consider against the facts what a reasonable employer in his position and circumstances at that time would have done and decided and to set this up as a standard against which the employer’s actions and decision are to be judged”.

My job in the instant case is to decide if the correct procedures were followed and was the outcome one that a reasonable employer would arrive at.

I note that the employer followed the correct procedures, and that the employee was offered the right to be accompanied by a colleague or union representative at each stage of the procedure.

In relation to the sanction of a Final Written Warning I note that the employee was written to by the European Human Resources Manager on 1st February 2021 requesting that he attend a Disciplinary Meeting regarding his poor performance and poor attitude. In the appeal outcome letter, it clearly states that the Final Written Warning was based on counting technique issues in store and not about attitude which had been questionable.

The core activity of the respondent employer’s business is counting stock and any employee adopting incorrect methods or techniques of counting could negatively impact on the respondent’s business.

It is against this fact that I have to recommend in favour of the employer. The complaint therefore is not well founded.

Industrial Relations issue.