LCR22770

1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No(s) r-154926-ir-15/r-155160-wt-15/EH.

BACKGROUND:

2.The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Adjudication Officer had issued the following Recommendation:

"I recommend that the warning was warranted.

I recommend that he should receive compensation of €150.00 for the lack of fair procedures.

This to be paid within six weeks of the date below."

A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 May 2023.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Worker against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision r-154926-ir-15. The Adjudication Officer upheld his complaint of lack of fair procedure and awarded compensation of €150.

Background

The Worker commenced employment with the Respondent on the 24^thMay 2013 and resigned from his position on the 15^thJune 2015. The Worker’s complaint is that he should not have received a written warning. This case is linked to UD/16/31, MWA/16/4 and WTC/16/57.

Summary of Worker’s submission

The Worker submitted that he was not afforded fair procedure when he was issued with a written warning for using his phone while driving. The Worker stated that he had confirmed to his manager that he had spoken on the phone without usingahands-free kit as had been reported by a passenger on the bus on the day in question. However, he believed that he had not received fair procedure as he was not allowed introduce essential facts in respect of the company’s policy. It was his submission that management expect him to have his personal mobile phone switched on and that no drivers use the handsfree sets installed in the buses. The Worker submitted that he should not have received a written warning as CITI bus were not implementing their own policy in respect of mobile phones with all drivers.

Summary of Employer’s submission

The Employer submitted that an investigation was carried out after they received complaints from two clients in respect of different issues. Following an interview with the Worker one of the complaints was dismissed. In respect of the second complaint the Worker accepted that he had been on his phone while driving the bus and no further investigation was required. He was issued with a written warning in respect of that complaint and was advised that he could appeal same.

In hindsight the Employer accepts that the locations where they held the meetings with the Worker were not ideal. The Employer refutes any suggestion that any driver is asked to break the law in respect of using mobile phones or at all. All the company coaches are fitted with handsfree devices that are specifically permitted by RSA guidelines.

Decision

The Court having read and listened carefully to the submissions of the parties finds that the Worker was not afforded fair procedure in respect of the manner in which the interviews were conducted in public places. The Court finds a sanction of a written warning was fair under the circumstances. The Court decides that the Worker should be paid compensation of €150.

The appeal fails.

The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
9 June 2023	Deputy Chairman