Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

A Courier Company

Representatives

SIPTU

IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00046809-001

22/10/2021

This dispute concerns the issuing of a written warning to the employee following a disciplinary process. The disciplinary process related to an incident where accidental damage was caused to a company vehicle on 14th July 2021 and the written warning was issued for 12 months with effect from that date.

The employee contends that the incident of 14th July 2021 was not properly investigated in line with Company procedures. Accordingly, the employee contends he was denied fair procedures and the principles of natural justice in relation to the disciplinary process. In relation to the written warning, the employee contends that it was excessive and disproportionate to the incident of the 14th July 2021 and that mitigating circumstances were not taken into account during the disciplinary process.

The employer’s position is that in circumstances where the employee accepted that he had caused the damage and had confirmed that it was avoidable, there was no need to carry out an investigation into the incident as the facts of the matter had already been established and the relevant incident form had been filled in. The employer contends that the subsequent disciplinary process complied with all aspects of the code of practice on grievance and disciplinary procedures - S.I. 146 of 2000 on the basis that the employee was aware of the charge against him, was afforded the right of representation at the disciplinary hearing and was advised of his right to appeal the disciplinary sanction, which he did. The employer contends that the issuing of a written warning for 12 months was the appropriate disciplinary sanction in the circumstances.

The employee is seeking a recommendation that the disciplinary sanction be reduced on the basis that the written warning he received for the damage to the company vehicle was disproportionate, that he was not afforded fair procedures as there was no investigation into the incident that took place on 14th July 2021 and that mitigating circumstances were not taken into account during the disciplinary process.

Having considered the matter, I do not find any procedural deficiencies in the employer’s disciplinary process. The employee completed the required incident form in relation to the incident in question and he accepted that he had accidentally hit a raised kerb when turning as a result of not leaving enough space on all four sides of his company vehicle. He also accepted in the incident form that this situation was avoidable. Given that there were no facts in dispute, the employer contended that any further investigation was unnecessary and in the circumstances of this particular issue, I accept that point of view.

I note that the written warning in question was due to expire approximately one week after the adjudication hearing of this dispute and I note that in line with the disciplinary procedures, the warning has now expired and has ceased to exist. On that basis I find that reducing the sanction would have no value on the basis that the sanction itself is no longer in existence.

In all of the circumstances of this dispute, and for the reasons stated above, I do not recommend in favour of the employee’s claim that the disciplinary sanction he received be reduced.

Written warning, disciplinary procedures