Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

SIPTU

IBEC

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 - 00000886

25/11/2022

The worker was issued with a written warning on 29 September 2022 following an investigation and disciplinary process. 

It was contended on behalf of the worker in the first instance that the warning was excessive and should not have issued in the circumstances, and further that the internal procedures were tainted by a procedural flaw which demonstrated a pre-determination of the issue and sanction by the respondent and a breach of fair procedures.

The written warning was the subject of an internal appeal, the outcome of which was to uphold the warning.

An audit of the respondent’s operations in June 2022 by an external regulatory body raised an issue regarding pressure reading recordings for an on-site buffer room.  The worker’s duties as warehouse operator included recording in a logbook the pressure readings for this room from a magnahelic gauge. 

The respondent’s investigation of this issue determined there had been a breach of data integrity and falsification of records.  The worker was advised of a disciplinary sanction at an investigation meeting.  When this was objected to, the matter was sent forward to a separate disciplinary panel.  The falsification of records allegation was withdrawn, and the allegation clarified as a breach of ALCOA principles with respect to data integrity.

The disciplinary hearing outcome was for first written warning to issue to the worker, with an expiry date of 29 June 2023.  The worker exercised the right to appeal this decision; the first written warning was upheld on appeal.

It was contended that the disciplinary warning to the worker was excessive, unwarranted, and pre-determined, as evidenced by the issuing of a disciplinary sanction at the investigation meeting and the provision of the disciplinary procedures with the notification of an investigation.  It was further submitted that the investigation and disciplinary process did not properly take account of relevant and mitigating circumstances, including that there were proven issues with the gauges and the pressure reading processes in place at the time, that the worker was acting under advice of a supervisor in amending certain logbook entries, and gave inappropriate weight to opinion-based and non-specific statements from staff members.   It was asserted that the procedural irregularity in the respondent’s investigation of the issue tainted the entire process and resulted in the worker being denied a fair hearing.  

The worker is a highly experienced operative with long service and an unblemished record with the employer.  The respondent has discontinued use of the magnahelic gauge monitoring system since the investigation and disciplinary process.  It was submitted that rather than resorting to a disciplinary process, a more appropriate course of action would have been to address and resolve the issues with the pressure readings in advance of any future audits.

The respondent is a licensed manufacturer of prescription medicines.  Its license for the US market is subject to inspection and audit by an external regulatory body.

A site audit was conducted by the regulatory body in June 2022.  Regulatory non-conformances and non-compliance with good manufacturing practice observations were outlined in inspection findings ~report that issued to the employer on 24 June 2022.  The respondent was required to address these issues within specific timelines.  One of the issues raised in the report concerned the buffer room logbook.  The buffer room is an ante-room and controlled area with specifications as to pressure and air quality.  The observation was that pressure reading entries in the buffer room logbook were at variance with the data available from electronic pressure monitoring systems in the area.  The employer committed to the regulatory body that it would investigate the actions of those involved in recording data in the logbook, along with providing data integrity retraining to the relevant staff.

The employer’s investigation manager notified the worker on 12 July 2022 that the employer was investigating buffer room logbook recordings from early May 2022, with a particular focus on the period 13 June to 22 June 2022.  As the worker was responsible for recording pressure readings in the logbook during the relevant period, he was informed that he was required to attend an investigation meeting.  The worker was advised of his right to representation and provided with relevant logbook extracts, electronic system records and a copy of the agreed disciplinary procedure.

Two investigation meetings took place at which the worker was represented by his union representative and shop steward.  At the second investigation meeting on 23 August 2022, there was an adjournment while the investigating manager considered the worker’s response to the allegations and reviewed the data and evidence gathered.  The investigation meeting reconvened, and the investigating manager gave a verbal summary of the case and confirmed his view as to the appropriate disciplinary sanction.  The complainant’s union representative raised concerns regarding procedural fairness at the end of the meeting.

On 26 August 2022, the support investigator from HR corresponded with the worker and agreed that a disciplinary decision should not have been made on the day.   She indicated her understanding that there was mutual agreement on deviation from various procedural norms, including that the case would run through from investigation to disciplinary decision.  The worker was further informed that the investigation was complete and that he would be issued with the investigation report.  He was advised that the matter would be referred to a separate disciplinary team.

The disciplinary meeting concluded on 29 September 2022 and an outcome letter issued to the worker on 5 October.  The worker received a disciplinary sanction of a stage 3 written warning, effective from 29 September 2022. 

The worker appealed the disciplinary decision.  During the appeal meeting, matters were discussed in detail and the worker was afforded the opportunity to address the grounds for appeal. The written warning was upheld on appeal.

The employer’s obligations as a licensed manufacturer were outlined along with the implications of the regulatory body’s inspection findings and observations.  A core requirement of the role of operative involved in the manufacture of human medicines is full adherence to data integrity.  This is recognised and given effect through the employer’s provision of induction and annual refresher training in data integrity.  The worker had confirmed as read and understood the employer’s documentation pertaining to data integrity.  It was submitted that the general principles of SI 146/2000 were adhered to in this case.  A sanction communicated verbally at the investigation hearing was withdrawn and the case sent forward to a disciplinary manager with no prior involvement.  The sanction imposed was at the lower end of the scale which demonstrates that all mitigating circumstances were considered.  The disciplinary sanction will expire and be expunged from the worker’s personnel record on 29 June 2023. 

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

The worker seeks rescission of the disciplinary sanction and a recommendation that the employer should not have issued the written warning.  Its position is that the disciplinary sanction was unwarranted, pre-determined and was invoked on foot of a procedurally flawed process.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires the Adjudication Officer to “make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his or her opinion on the merits of the dispute.”  This dispute concerns the issuing of a disciplinary sanction to the worker.  For clarity, it is not my role to reopen and conduct internal investigations or processes. 

By correspondence dated 12 July 2022, the worker was notified of the commencement of the employer’s investigation following the observation concerning pressure readings.  He was required to attend an investigation meeting as he had made pressure reading entries in the logbook during the period in question.  The specific allegation detailed in that correspondence was that there had been “a potential breach of ALCOA data integrity (falsification of records)” which if upheld upon investigation, would be a disciplinary matter.  Falsification of records is an example of serious misconduct under the relevant disciplinary procedure for the place of employment, which may warrant immediate suspension or dismissal without notice.  

There were two investigation meetings on 17 and 23 August 2022.  The worker had union representation throughout the investigation and disciplinary processes.  At the first investigation meeting on 17 August 2022, the specific allegation put to the worker was that there had been a potential breach of ALCOA data integrity on dates in June 2022 in relation to the recording of buffer room pressure readings.  There was no reference to falsification of records.  At the second investigation meeting on 23 August 2022, the investigation team confirmed a disciplinary sanction for the worker in the form of a stage 3 written warning.  I note that normal procedure had been departed from to allow for a group process with other workers who were the subject of the same investigation and to facilitate multiple representatives in attendance.   The employer was under a misunderstanding that there was agreement to an abridged investigation and disciplinary process.  The worker’s representative objected to the provision of a sanction at the investigation meeting on grounds of procedural fairness.   The employer took responsibility for its misunderstanding and advised on 26 August 2022 of the appointment of a separate disciplinary team.  The worker and his representative were provided with the investigation report on 29 August 2022.  I note that the investigation report details the specifics of the allegation, the logbook entries of concern in relation to the worker, the evidence relied upon and the response of the worker to the allegation.   The investigation team found there was a disciplinary case to answer and that the matter should be referred to a separate disciplinary hearing.  By correspondence dated 5 September 2022, the worker was provided with details of the disciplinary panel and invited to attend a disciplinary meeting on 12 September 2022.  The correspondence addressed the worker’s right to representation and advised of the purpose of the meeting.  The disciplinary hearing resulted in the issue to the worker of a stage 3 written warning, to expire on 29 June 2023.  This was confirmed in writing to the worker on 5 October 2022 and the worker was advised of his right of appeal.  The disciplinary hearing outcome letter was detailed, and included what was considered by the disciplinary team.  The worker appealed and the employer arranged an independent appeal panel, the names of whom were communicated to the worker and his representative on 13 October 2022.  The appeal outcome, including minutes of the appeal meeting, were provided to the worker on 4 November 2022.  The appeal manager upheld the disciplinary sanction of written warning.  His decision set out what he had reviewed in determining the appeal and responded to the grounds of appeal. 

I am satisfied, on review of the entirety of the investigation and disciplinary process, that there was adherence to the general principles of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, SI No 146 of 2000.  The employer accepted responsibility in a timely manner for the procedural irregularity in giving a disciplinary sanction at the end of the second investigation meeting.  I am satisfied that the steps it took to rectify this issue were appropriate and that the worker’s right to a fair and impartial determination of the issue was secured.  In this regard, I note the independence of both the disciplinary and appeal panels and the consideration given by both panels to the discrete disciplinary finding and circumstances of the worker’s case.

I acknowledge the preference on the part of the worker, and the representations on his behalf, for the issue to have been addressed other than by way of the investigation/disciplinary procedure.   I am satisfied that the employer had cause to investigate the logbook pressure recordings following the external inspection and audit, and do not consider it appropriate to interfere with its decision to address the issue by reference to its disciplinary procedure.  The written warning sanction that issued to the worker was at stage 3, the lower end of an agreed six-stage disciplinary sanction scale.  I have reviewed the employer’s reasons, as outlined to the worker in the disciplinary outcome and appeal outcome letters, for how it reached its decision, including on sanction, which I consider to be rational and fair.  I am not satisfied of a basis for recommending that the written warning should not have been imposed.  

At the hearing, the employer confirmed that the written warning was due to expire two days after the hearing date and that it would then be expunged from the worker’s personnel records.  In those circumstances, I trust that it will not feature or impact on the worker’s employment with the employer going forward.

Accordingly, I do not recommend in favour of the worker in relation to the dispute and recommend the worker and employer move on from this in the interests of a harmonious employment relationship.

Industrial Relations Act - Disciplinary sanction – Unwarranted – Alternatives – Procedural issues