Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Food Company

Representatives

Lidia Cichocka SIPTU

 N/A

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 – 00000936

12/12/2022

The Worker has been employed as a Material Supply Planner with the Employer since 6 August 2000. She stated that, following the conclusion of a disciplinary process, a decision to temporarily terminate her right to the Employer’s hybrid working policy for a period of three months from 3 January 2023 was unfair.

On 25 October 2022, the Worker received an invitation to a meeting with two members of the management team and was unaware of the purpose of the meeting. During this meeting, her lateness on a few occasions was discussed as well as situations where she could ‘not be observed’ on site. She was not provided with a copy of these discussed instances in advance and found it difficult to recall all of the situations.  She was also nervous, agitated and upset entering the meeting and questioned the source of information regarding her lateness. She was informed that it was observed and collected with the use of CCTV footage.

Although the Worker’s timekeeping significantly improved with no further incidents of lateness the Employer decided to proceed with the disciplinary process. Specifically, on 7 November 2022, she received an invitation to an investigation meeting with dates and exact times that she was late or not on site. A copy of the Employer’s disciplinary policy was also included in the pack and she was advised to seek representation. The meeting was scheduled for 8 November 2022 and the purpose of it was to discuss these instances of lateness and that she left the building without communication with management. 

On 14 November 2022, the Worker received an invitation to attend a disciplinary hearing that was to be held via Microsoft Teams. At this stage, the allegation was “punctuality” and “an alleged breach of our lateness control procedure”. On 15 November 2022, the disciplinary hearing was held via Microsoft Teams and the Worker was accompanied by her union representative. During the meeting, the Worker explained that she never had to report her lateness before but stated that if this is what the Employer wanted her to do, she was happy to do so. She also pointed out that she did not have any relationship with her covering manager, that she only met him on one occasion and did not feel comfortable discussing her personal life and health issues with him. Poor communication within the team was also discussed as well as a lack of adherence to the company’s CCTV policy.

On 21 November 2022, the Worker received an outcome letter wherein she was informed that “a decision has been made to temporarily terminate your right to the hybrid working policy,…. for a period of three months from 3 January 2023”.

On 25 November 2022, the Worker appealed the sanction and a hearing was scheduled for 29 November 2022. During the meeting, the Worker pointed out the inconsistency in the HR department’s approach towards employees’ lateness and stated that she had strong reasons to believe it was personal and that she felt targeted. She also emphasised that she was not given a chance to prepare for the first informal meeting that took place on 25 October 2022 given that it led to a disciplinary action. She also highlighted that she did not receive minutes from any of the hearings. Moreover, the severity of the sanction was highlighted as well as another inconsistency with lateness control and disciplinary policy in the company’s handbook. The Worker also once again stressed the importance of the remote working considering her personal situation.

On 1 December 2022, she was informed that her appeal was unsuccessful.

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

Specifically, I noted that the Complainant’s privilege of working from home was withdrawn from her by way of a disciplinary sanction on 3 January 2023 for a trial period of three months and that it was restored at the end of this period on 3 April 2023.

I also note the decision of the Labour Court in LCR21763, which I opened to the parties during the hearing, where it was found that “The Court cannot expunge something that no longer exists” in circumstances where the Labour Court held a hearing on 25 July 2018 and the warning issued to the Worker had expired on 30 May 2018.

I find that the Labour Court decision is on all fours with the instant dispute, given that the sanction imposed on the Worker in this dispute expired on 3 April 2023, and cannot therefore recommend concession of the claim.