Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Joanna Ozdarska SIPTU

 Loughlin Deegan, Byrne Wallace 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-00043929-001

06/05/2021

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The employee submitted that he was out for two extended periods in 2020 and that each period was covered by a medical cert.  this was considered to amount to absenteeism.

The employee submitted that the disciplinary procedure followed was not fair and objective in that the same person conducted the investigation and the disciplinary meeting.

The employee submitted that the warning was disproportionate and that it impacted on his promotional opportunities and on the level of his bonus.

The employee submitted that he is seeking a recommendation that the employer should make a payment to him for how he was treated.

The employer submitted that at all time it followed the procedures as laid down in the agreements it has negotiated with the union.  The employer submitted that the employee was absent for 77 days across two periods in 2020.  This rate of absence triggered the companies disciplinary process as provided for in the agreement with the union.  The agreement specifically mentions that absenteeism “for whatever reason” will be dealt with under the disciplinary process.

The employer submitted that the possibility of the same person conducting the investigative meeting and the disciplinary meeting is specifically provided for in the agreement between the employer and the union where it relates to absenteeism. 

In relation to the employee not being shortlisted for promotion, the shortlisting board used an anonymised matrix for considering candidates and one of the criteria was attendance.  The employees absentee rate meant that he was not shortlisted.

The employer submitted that the sanction was appropriate and given that the 9-month warning has expired, and the employee has a good attendance record at the moment, it envisages no further difficulties with promotional competitions.

The union has agreed a procedure with the employer that covers absenteeism.  The employer acknowledged that it is strict when it comes to absenteeism for whatever the reason.  The procedure allows for the same person to conduct the investigative meeting and the disciplinary hearing in cases of absenteeism.  There was no suggestion that the appeal hearing was heard by the same person. 

Where one party has agreed to strict procedures for dealing with certain issues in return for receiving due consideration from the other party, I cannot find that this agreed procedure is not fair and objective where the party complaining about the agreement it signed is a union who have the resources and expertise to consider such matters adequately and properly before signing up to such an agreement.

Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, I find that the employer has followed the agreed procedures for handling cases of absenteeism.  The process did not vary from that which was specifically agreed for dealing with cases of absenteeism

Having considered all the written and oral submissions in relation to this dispute, I recommend that the parties continue to follow the agreements that they have negotiated together.

IR compliant – absenteeism - recommendation to  continue following agreement