LCR22871

CD/23/275

DECISION  No. LCR22871

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES:

LOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL

(REPRESENTED BY LGMA)

AND

A WORKER

(REPRESENTED BY SIPTU)

DIVISION

Chairman: Ms. Connolly

 Employer Member:  Mr Marie

 Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SUBJECT

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00041356 (IR-SC-00000595)

BACKGROUND

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 5 September 2023 in

accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 November 2023.

DECISION

The matter before the Court concerns a claim by a worker that he was unfairly sanctioned and taken off winter road gritting roster following an incident in relation to a gritting truck in December 2020.

The worker was issued with a disciplinary sanction for failing to follow an instruction to collect a replacement truck, when issues arose with the truck he was driving. The worker refused to drive the truck on the basis that it was unsafe. The Employer submits that the truck was safe to drive to a location to collect an alternative truck and the worker refused to follow a reasonable instruction.

SIPTU submits that the worker was placed on administrative leave which should only apply in cases of alleged serious misconduct. The matter was not properly investigated, and the procedures used to sanction him were flawed. The sanction issued to him was not merited. As a result of the employer's actions the worker's good reputation was tarnished. The worker seeks compensation for loss of earnings and compensation for the effects of the Employer actions.

The LGMA submits that winter gritting duties are undertaken by workers on a voluntary basis. When the worker refused to carry out an instruction, he was placed on administrative leave in respect of those duties only. He continued to carry out his substantive role. The sanction applied was to remove the worker from the winter road gritting roster for winter 2020/2021. The worker availed of his right to appeal the sanction. When he raised concerns about the appeal process, the person appointed to hear the appeal was replaced. The matter was dealt with fairly, appropriately and in accordance with the disciplinary policy. All principles of natural justice were followed.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submission of the parties.

The Court notes the worker raised concerns about the disciplinary process with the CEO at the outset. Having written to the CEO the worker chose not to engage in the process and instead read out a pre-prepared statement at the disciplinary hearing. A worker is expected to cooperate with any disciplinary investigation. In this case by refusing to engage in the process, the worker denied himself an opportunity to respond to any questions raised and have his views fully considered as part of any outcome.

The employer relies on a clause in the disciplinary policy that states 'in certain situations where the potential disciplinary action is less than a formal written warning the investigation and disciplinary hearing may be held by the appropriate Manager at a single meeting'. This is at odds with the letter issued to the worker inviting him to a disciplinary meeting which details matters that fall under 'gross misconduct' in the policy. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that the way the process was implemented led to confusion and gave rise to concerns on the workers part. The Court also notes a lack of clarity about where the sanction issued to the worker sits within the employer's disciplinary policy, and that the internal appeal process did not conclude until June 2022.

The Court notes that the worker was offered the opportunity to return to the winter gritting roster but has declined to do so.

Having regard to all of the circumstances of this matter, the Court recommends as follows:

The disciplinary sanction and all correspondence relating to this matter be expunged from the worker's file. This should be confirmed to the worker in writing once actioned.

The Employer pay to the worker €3,500 in full and final settlement of this matter.

The Court so decides.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

NOTE:

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be in writing  and addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.