Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Oscar Lyons BL instructed by Garrett Fortune Garrett J. Fortune & Co

Aaron Shearer BL instructed by Paul Brady & Co Solicitors

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000079

13/04/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000080

13/04/2022

The Worker was employed by the Employer until his resignation in January 2022.

The Worker suffered a workplace accident in June 2021. He submitted a claim related to this incident and alleges that he suffered bullying and penalisation from the Employer after this.

He has submitted two complaints under the Industrial Relations Act.

The first, IR - SC – 00000079, concerns the Employer’s decision to sanction him for time-keeping issues as well as alleged bullying and failure to pay him sick pay.

The second, IR - SC – 00000080, concerns his alleged forced resignation. A separate complaint was referred to me under the Unfair Dismissals Act concerning this allegation. As I came to a decision on that complaint first I am barred from considering this trade dispute under Section 8 (10) of the Unfair Dismissals Act. 

The Worker made detailed oral and written submissions. 

He had a good working relationship with the Employer. He succeeded in passing his probation and got on well with his supervisors. He was frequently selected for overtime.

He suffered a workplace injury when a piece of metal fell on his foot in June 2021 and was on sick leave for a period of time. The Employer at first wrongly stated that the accident was his fault and then they conceded it wasn’t. With the help of his Union he sought paid sick leave but the Employer rejected this request.

Shortly after he returned to work he started getting reprimanded for time attendance. He had recently taken two half days, one was for a funeral and the other was due to sickness. 

In August he felt unwell and left after telling his supervisor. Later in the month he asked the same supervisor whether he could make up the time. His supervisor told him he couldn’t because he had a hangover. This was said in front of other workers. He felt shocked and upset and that the supervisor had treated him as if he was a child.

He complained about this to the HR Manager who committed to investigate the matter however she instead passed the matter to the production manager who held a meeting with both the Worker and the supervisor to consider both his grievance and his time management. The supervisor apologised and the Worker was given a verbal warning for his time management.

The Worker appealed this decision to give him a verbal warning. This was held in September, he stated that he felt he was being bullied and that he had not be allowed to work up time he had missed due to sick leave. The appeal was considered by a HR manager who had a prior involvement in the matter and the production manager who had made the previous decision.

The Employer argues that it was entirely entitled challenge the Worker on his time keeping and only gave him the lowest possible sanction. When he raised a complaint regarding a comment made to him by a supervisor they dealt with it promptly and secured an apology for the Worker.

They maintain that they treated him fairly at all times.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Having heard both parties on the issue I am not satisfied that the Worker was entitled to any sick pay. I am also not satisfied that he was bullied or penalised for bringing a personal injury claim.

The Worker has challenged the decision and method by which the Respondent gave him a disciplinary warning, In particular, the Worker has established that the hearing in which the sanction was considered was held informally and together with a grievance he had raised regarding his manager. When he sought to appeal the decision to sanction him a person with prior involvement with that decision heard the appeal.

I am satisfied that the Employer has failed to adhere to a clear, structured and ultimately fair process in arriving at the decision to sanction the Worker.  While the early stages of a disciplinary or grievance process do not need to be overly formal they do need to be clearly structured so that a Worker’s right to make their case, while on notice of the relevant issues, is upheld.

I note that the Worker has since resigned and as such recommending removing the sanction would be pointless. I also note that the Worker did seem to have genuine time keeping issues and had been given the lowest possible sanction, as such recommending any sort of significant payment to the Worker would not be reasonable.

IR - SC - 00000079

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €500.

IR - SC – 00000080

I make no recommendation as I have considered the same termination separately under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.