ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference:
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Worker | Meat processing group |
Representatives | Self | IBEC |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) | CA-00048635 | 15/02/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Date of Hearing: 15/09/2022
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Complainant was general operative and the Respondent was a meat processing group. The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on the 17 August 2021 as a packing general operative. Her employment was terminated on 20 January 2022 on the grounds upon successful probation. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker's case is that she reported a pain in her shoulder to the Employer. They terminated her employment on 19 January 2021. She tried to appeal the decision and wrote them several emails. She submitted the did not take her seriously. At the hearing she confirmed that she was absent from work for 19 days during her probation period. She also confirmed that she had union representation during her engagement with the Employer. She provided me with this documentary evidence that she received a letter inviting her to an appeals hearing after the date had passed. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer made a preliminary application with regard to the name of the Employer set out in the Complaint form. It explained that there was no company with the suffix "Limited" in its name. The correct suffix was "Unlimited Company". The Employer explained that it recognises SIPTU for collective bargaining and representation purposes and has a Company Union Works agreement in place. On the 29 November 2021 the Worker was invited to a probation review. It was highlighted to her that her attendance and timekeeping was unacceptable. She had been an uncertified absence on three occasions to that date. The Worker was also absent on 16 December 2021 and did not make the required contact to the Employer or submit a medical certificate as required. One month later the Worker submitted a medical certificate covering the period 17 December to 24 December. The Worker returned to work on 13 January 2022. She was informed that a probation review would be held in the coming days which could lead to his dismissal. A meeting was held on 18 January 2022 and 19 January 2022. The Worker was represented by her SIPTU shop steward at both meetings. She also had a colleague support her at the second meeting. The Worker was informed that her level of absence during her probationary period was 21%. On 20 January 2022 the HR manager wrote to the Worker indicating that her employment was being terminated on the grounds of an unsuccessful probation. The Worker did not attend the appeal hearing that was arranged. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The Worker was not represented by union at the hearing. Her main issue related to the delay in receipt of the correspondence about her appeal hearing. I accept her evidence in this regard. The Employer had no record of the Workers email regarding the missed appeal hearing. As all available internal processes must be exhausted, I recommend that the Employer reschedule the Worker's appeal of her dismissal. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the Employer reschedule the Worker's appeal of her dismissal.
Dated: November 14th 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Appeal procedures. |