The Worker

The Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Plant Operative

A Food Supplier

Representatives

Martina Weir SIPTU - Works Rights Centre

Susan O Riordan IBEC HR Executive

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-00044051-001

13/05/2021

The Worker appealed a Final Written Warning on the basis it was too severe a sanction for his actions. Both Parties made lengthy submissions which are summarised below.

The Worker is seeking a Final Written Warning-issued on 26 March 2021- reduced to a Verbal Warning. The basis for his challenge is the Employer's:

Failure to take account of The Workers good record.

Failure to take account of his good service.

Failure to take account of the circumstances which led to the incident.

The Worker commenced employment in 2016 he therefore has almost 6 years' service and is a General Operative. He has been involved in no Disciplinary issues over this time and has a good record overall. The Worker works 39 hours per week, and he is paid €470 gross per week. Working relations between The Worker and all Supervisors and Managers has been excellent over the course of his term of employment. Unfortunately, Redundancy has been a feature at the plant over recent months, resulting in approximately half the workforce losing their jobs. It would be fair to say that this has instilled a high level of anxiety into the workforce, and this is still regarded by the those remaining, as a potential threat to their own security of employment- The Worker especially felt very stressed over the situation.

Therefore, the matter which resulted in the issuing of the sanction took place against a background of months of uncertainty and unease and this most certainly played a role in the actions of The Worker on the dates in question. Basically, what happened was that The Worker left his workstation to go to his break at 9:30am. The Workers break time would normally have been 9:30am but he had recently moved from his normal role (Debagger) to another (End of line) and the break time for the new position (End of Line) was IOam. The Worker had arranged with his co-workers, for his work to be covered while he took his break at 9.30am, thereby ensuring that the line didn't stop. On the date in question (11.02.21) The Worker took his break at 9.30am -satisfied in the knowledge that this would not negatively impact production. Unfortunately, cover wasn't put in place and the line stopped. This resulted in the involvement of the Supervisor who went to the canteen to investigate why The Worker was not at his workstation. The Worker was not alone in the canteen at this time, and he has described the Supervisors approach as aggressive and he felt humiliated and demeaned to be treated in this way in front of his peers. The effect on The Worker was crushing and he felt completely overwhelmed. A feeling of panic came over him and a need to escape the situation The Worker left the building very upset, very unsteady and advises that he has only scant memory of leaving and driving to his home. It was this incident which led to the process which resulted in the issuing of the Final Written Warning to The Worker. An Appeal of the Sanction was lodged on the 8th of April 2021 and the Appeal was rejected.

Some might say that The Workers reaction to the encounter with his supervisor was an overreaction but without being in The Workers shoes this cannot be judged as s This behaviour was completely out of character for The Worker. He was (and remains) a solid and reliable unassuming Worker.  He was however, stressed from the job losses which he feared could at any time threaten his own job security It may well have been an overreaction and in hindsight The Worker might even agree, but it was based on The Workers state of mind at that time and not on any disregard for his job or a slight to his employers or fellow Workers.

The following extract is from the Company Disciplinary Procedure. "Disciplinary hearings will always be carried out away from the immediate workplace and in a suitable private area." While this was not a Disciplinary Hearing, this statement places some weight on the necessity for privacy and confidentiality in circumstances where Workers are required to explain their actions. It must surely follow that in the circumstances of this case, The Worker was entitled to a level of confidentiality and privacy. Had this been provided to him then he would not have felt the humiliation of being reprimanded in front of work colleagues.

The Worker remained off work the following day which was the 12 Feb 2021.

At 10:07am The Worker sent a text message to his Supervisor. Clearly still very distressed by the incident from the day before. This text was sent approximately 2 hours after normal start time of 8am. The circumstances were in this instance exceptional as this behaviour was so totally out of character for this Worker. Therefore, The Worker is covered by the Absence policy. Further to that The Worker is unsure who called who after that text and accepts that he may have missed a call from his Supervisor at 10.21am. The Worker did however phone his Supervisor back at 3.05pm but got no reply. The Worker recalls being told later by his Supervisor that his phone had died.

The Workers case is based on the following:

He did contact management on the12th February 2021.Therefore he was not in breach of the absence notification requirements.

He was in a very distressed state on the 11th and consequently acted in a very uncharacteristic manner.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Appeal took consideration of the defence put forward around The Workers state of mind or that this was out of character.

The Worker believes the if the totality of the circumstances is given due consideration, then the mitigating factors are sufficient to warrant a reduction in the severity of the sanction.

The Worker is suffering high levels of anxiety since receiving this Final Warning which is a constant threat hanging over him. He is having problems sleeping and feels that any minor infringement could now result in the loss of his job.

The Worker is seeking a reduction in the sanction issued and given the out of character nature of the incident, his years of dedicated service, and overall good record a verbal warning would be more reasonable.

              The Employer accepted that the general facts and background as presented by the Worker Representative were as laid out however the Employer disputed that the severity of the warning is too high as the Workers actions in taking his break early and unauthorised absences caused a major problem in the manufacturing process and the Employer maintained that the Worker was on unauthorised absence the day after leaving the plant without authorisation. The Employer also stated that the Supervisor was very approachable and the Worker had no reason to act like he did. The Employer stated that the relationships between management and the Worker had been excellent and continued to be excellent however it could not overlook the Workers actions which amounted to gross misconduct. They stated the Worker was an excellent employee and that his actions did appear of out character but denied that there was any reason for the Worker to have concerns about redundancy as things stood in the Company and this was no excuse for his actions. The Employer stated that the actions of the Supervisor in discussing the issue with the employee while others were present were not intended to humiliate the Worker, but the Worker was also not aware of the serious problem he had caused by leaving his work station as he did.

Following consideration of the submissions and in particular the Workers outstanding employment and performance record with the Company which was acknowledged by all Parties,  and the Workers Representative assurances that the Worker has learnt from his actions and is highly unlikely to repeat the actions involved I Recommend, on a red circled basis solely applicable to the Worker and on the basis it forms no precedent for any other similar situations, that the Final Written Warning be terminated effective from the date of this Recommendation.

Final Written Warning