FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00024471, CA-00031149-001, CA-00031150-001
Issue 1 (CA-00031149-001) On 28 May 2018 the Worker was issued with a ’Warning plus a one-day suspension’for failing to report to work for duty. She appealed that sanction. There was an inordinate delay on the part of the Employer in hearing that appeal. On the 2 May 2019, almost one year later, the sanction was reduced to a ‘Warning plus a recorded day of suspension’. The appeal took just short of one year to be dealt with, which is unacceptable and in breach of the Employers procedures. The Worker seeks compensation as the Court sees fit for the delay in dealing with this matter. Issue 2 (CA-00031150-001) On 11 March 2019 the Worker was issued with a ‘Final Warning plus one week recorded suspension’. On appeal that sanction was reduced to a ‘Severe Warning plus one week recorded suspension’. The Employer did not deal with matters in a timely fashion and breached their own procedures. The Employer took onboard complaints from the school principal, without looking into the principal’s motives for submitting these complaints. There were no complaints from parents. The Worker seeks that the ‘Severe Warning plus one week recorded suspension’be expunged from her file. Both matters were referred to the WRC and a hearing scheduled for February 2020. That hearing did not proceed on the day and further difficulties arose with a hearing scheduled on March 2020. A remote hearing held in February 2021 was discontinued due to connectivity issues. A physical hearing was finally held in November 2021 and the Adjudication Officer found that all disciplinary actions had lapsed and were expunged from the Worker’s record. SIPTU submits that the inordinate delay in dealing with the first appeal caused the Worker considerable upset. She feels that she has been further penalised by the delays in progressing her appeal with the WRC as she wished to have the disciplinary sanctions expunged from her record. The Worker seeks that the Court find that the claims have merit and award compensation as appropriate. Employer Submission The Employer has an agreed disciplinary procedure in place. The cases pertaining to the Worker were dealt with fairly, transparently, and in line with the agreed disciplinary procedures up to including an appeal to the independent Appeals Board. The Employer notes the considerable time period between when the appeal for the first complaint was lodged and subsequently heard. It does not condone such a delay, which is not common practise. The Employer outlined to the Court a number of specific factors that gave rise to the specific delay that arose during that period. The Company requests the Court to dismiss the claimant’s appeal and uphold the Decision(s) of both the Independent Appeals Board and the Workplace Relations Commission. Recommendation The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties. The Court substantially concurs with the findings of the Adjudication Officer that the two separate disciplinary sanctions have expired and are now removed from the Worker’s record. As the sanctions have been expunged they no longer have any standing or relevance. The Court notes the Union’s submission that the prolonged timeframe that elapsed before the worker’s appeal of the disciplinary sanction issued in 2018 was addressed by the employer is unacceptable and breached the Company’s own procedure. While there is an explicit time limit for a worker to submit an appeal within a seven-day period, no corresponding limit exists for the hearing of an appeal by the employer. The Employer acknowledges that such a delay is not common practice and advised the Court that exceptional circumstances arose at that time that led to the delay. In the Court’s view the protracted nature of that first appeal fell short of best practice and fair process. Having regard to the specific circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the employer pay the Worker the sum of €1,000.00 in full and final settlement of matters relating to the handling of that matter. The Court makes no recommendation in relation to the second appeal before it. The Worker’s appeal is partially upheld. The Court so Decides.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary. |
