ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039084
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Vehicle Inspector | Vehicle Testing Company |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 | CA-00050513 | 9/5/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance withSection 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the dispute.
The worker and his representative made a submission in advance of the hearing and attended at the Workplace Relations Hearing Room in Carlow. The employer did not attend the hearing although did send an email of 18th January 2023 stating that they would not be attending as the matter in dispute was closed.
Background:
Arising from an incident of 16th November 2020, the worker was invited to attend a meeting with management on 16th March 2021. The worker denied his involvement in the incident at that meeting. A subsequent meeting took place on 1st April 2021 between his union official and management. A disciplinary meeting took place on 3rd June 2021 and the worker received a final written warning by email dated 25th June 2021. The worker appealed the decision and an appeal hearing then took place on 26th April 2022. The appeal decision issued on 4th May 2022 and upheld the sanction of a final written warning. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker denied involvement in the incident. Along with his union official, he was not satisfied with the way in which the matter was investigated. The worker’s representative maintained that the investigation was flawed and there was insufficient evidence to connect the worker to the incident. The worker was brought through an extended disciplinary and appeals process from 16th March 2021 to 4th May 2022. He also had a final written warning hanging over him from June 2021 to June 2022 relating to an incident on 16th November 2020. He attended the hearing to have the issues investigated independently and on their merits. He was required to take a day’s annual leave to attend the Workplace Relations Hearing on 30th January 2023. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
Although the employer did not attend the hearing, the email submitted of 18th January 2023 states that ‘The worker was issued with a final written warning effective from 25th June 2021, for a 12-month period, ending on 24th June 2022. The warning is now ended, and no longer valid, in essence removed from his file, therefore the company is of the opinion that the matter is now closed.’ |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is unfortunate that the employer did not attend the hearing particularly as the worker had taken a day’s leave to attend. Attendance would also have assisted in explaining why there were delays in the process and whether an appropriate sanction was issued. In relation to the process itself, the incident occurred on 16th November 2020 and the final written warning was expunged on 24th June 2022. The company policy states that an appeal will be heard within 10 working days, yet it took 10 months and many letters from the worker’s representative to get an appeal date. The company procedure also allows for a ‘referral of the matter through the normal industrial relations procedures.’ Yet, in this case, despite the referral, the company has decided not to attend and declared the dispute closed. It is also noted that the letter of 4th May 2022 confirms the sanction of a final written warning after the appeal and concludes –‘In accordance with the Company Appeal process, this matter is now closed.’ So, in two separate documents, the company have declared the matter ‘closed’ despite the company procedures allowing a referral to the state industrial relations bodies, if an employee remains unsatisfied. I find that there has been a breach of procedures by the company due to the non-attendance at the hearing which would have allowed all parties to have their say and have the issues examined independently. There was also a breach in terms of the delay in arranging an appeal. Given the circumstances, I am recommending that the company grant an additional 3 days paid annual leave to the worker. This is to compensate for the annual leave day to attend the hearing along with 2 additional days due to the fragrant breach of process by the company. I also recommend that the final written warning stands expunged. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the company grant an additional 3 days paid annual leave to the worker. This is to compensate for the annual leave day to attend the hearing along with 2 additional days due to the fragrant breach of process by the company. I also recommend that the final written warning stands expunged. |
Dated: 02-02-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Disciplinary Process |