ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032329
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Senior Technician | A Production Organisation |
Representatives | Marie O'Connor SIPTU | Aisling McDevitt IBEC |
Dispute:
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-00042779-001 | 02/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute
Background:
The worker disputed the verbal warning that he was issued.
A summary of the background to events were:
On 8th October 2020 the worker carried out maintenance of a machine and the machine failed to work for a period of time after maintenance.
The worker was advised on 18th November 2020 that an investigative meeting would be held attended Mr A and Mr B on 19th November 2020 and the worker was afforded representation.
Minutes of this meeting were issued on 30th November and the worker was invited to respond to same and the worker replied to same with additions on 1st December 2020.
An outcome meeting was arranged for 3rd December 2020 and a verbal warning was issued to the worker dated 8th December 2020.
On 11th December the worker appealed the verbal warning which was heard on 15th December 2020 with a further meeting on 17th December and a decision meeting on 18th December 2020 advising that the verbal warning was upheld.
|
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker submitted that he should not have received a verbal warning.
It was set out that maintenance of this machine was previously carried out by technicians but the employer requested the worker to complete it on this occasion.
The employer did not have sufficient parts for the worker to adequately complete the appropriate maintenance.
It was denied that the machine was down for any significant period of time as there was no night shift.
No explanation was given as to why it took from 8th October to 18 November 2020 to make a decision regarding whether to investigate the worker regarding what occurred.
The worker could not be expected to send an email at the end of the maintenance as he did not fully complete the maintenance.
It would appear that an investigation only commenced when the worker indicated that he was not interested in applying for a severance package.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The worker was given a verbal warning following a disciplinary process and the employer submitted that the warning was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The worker was required to complete a scheduled monthly preventative maintenance task on a machine. The machine has been working pre-maintenance but failed to operate post maintenance. The worker failed to complete a changeover email and failed to follow the correct sequence for the maintenance of the machine.
On 8th October 2020 when carrying out the maintenance of the machine, the worker incorrectly reinserted a machine part and because he failed to follow out his work in the correct sequential order, there were significant delays in locating his mistake. The worker’s supervisor was off on leave and therefore it was not possible to proceed with the investigation immediately.
It was further submitted that the warning was fair and reasonable with fair process and a proportionate sanction for the failures of the worker. At all time the laws of natural justice applied including affording the worker an opportunity to state his case, have somebody represent him and the facts were fully investigated by senior personnel not involved in the original investigation.
Case law referred to included LCR 21862 (Tesco v A Worker) and LCR 21763 (Tesco v A Worker) and Looney v Looney and it was submitted that as per LCR21763 the issue is moot as the warning expires on 8th June 2021– 4 days after the instant hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that the incident occurred on 8th October and an investigation commenced on 18th November 2020.
The employer submitted that delays in commencing the investigation was owing to the leave of the supervisor tasked with commencing the investigation. No explanation was given as to why someone else could not commence an investigation in the absence of this supervisor.
Taking into consideration all the submissions including those following the hearing, I find that while noting the level of seriousness that the employer submitted was attached to the incident such that it resulted in a verbal warning; there was a significant delay in commencing the investigation which could have been avoided.
Taking into consideration all of the submissions, and the unique circumstances of this dispute, I recommend that the verbal warning expires on the date that I heard this dispute, namely 4th June 2021. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Taking into consideration all of the submissions, and the unique circumstances of this dispute, I recommend that the verbal warning expires on the date that I heard this dispute, namely 4th June 2021. |
Dated: 21st September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Industrial relations act, verbal warning |