Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Company

Representatives

SIPTU

CIF

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 - 00001228

02/04/2023

The worker has been employed as a General Operative for over 20 years. In June 2022, he was called to an exploratory meeting wherein issues were raised on targets not met. Following this meeting, he was issued with a verbal warning on 12th July 2022 in relation to his performance. Reference was also made in the warning letter to expected improvements on cooperation and communication with his supervisor.

The disciplinary sanction was appealed, and the verbal warning sanction was upheld on 5th October 2022.

SIPTU on behalf of the worker allege that proper procedures were not followed and consequently that the verbal warning be expunged from his file. Additionally, compensation is being sought due to the alleged inadequate procedures, which had an unnecessary detrimental effect on the worker. The worker was out of work due to illness for 4 days in August 2022.

The company representative denies that there has been any serious breach of procedures and if there were, that these were cured through the appeal process.

The worker’s representative outlined that he was afforded representation at the initial hearing, although he got no notice that disciplinary issues would be raised. Also, the meeting was not conducted fairly despite being referred to as an exploratory meeting. The issues raised at the meeting about productivity related to dates at the end of March and beginning of April 2022 and had not been flagged to the worker when they arose. Furthermore, when the disciplinary sanction issued, it referred to communication issues along with the productivity issues.

The employer representative outlined the disciplinary procedures followed and that the worker availed of representation at the initial hearing and during the appeal. Any alleged flaw in the initial process was not raised by the worker or his representative during the appeal stage. Furthermore, the worker delayed in referring the issues to the WRC and that the verbal warning had expired on 11th January 2023.

The representative outlined that company procedures have been reviewed collectively between management and the union and that new revised procedures are almost agreed.

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

It was clarified with the parties that the procedures in place for this worker consisted of the agreed 1993 procedures which were complemented by the Statutory Instrument (S.I) 146/2000 Disciplinary procedures. Both parties acknowledged the recent positive engagements in reviewing procedures on a collective basis and that these would be in place shortly.

Having reviewed the procedures in place in relation to this dispute, along with the submissions made by the parties, it is evident that the disciplinary process did not afford the worker adequate notice of the productivity issues prior to his attendance at the initial hearing. S.I 146/2000 allow for allegations or complaints to be put to the employee concerned and that he be given an opportunity to respond fully to any such allegations or complaints. By raising these issues for the first time at the meeting in June 2022 and without adequate notice, the disciplinary process did not afford the worker due process. The worker responded to the issues raised at the said meeting. Along with the productivity issues the subsequent verbal warning letter then referred to “communication with the supervisor” as an issue.

It is not clear whether this second issue was intended to be part of the disciplinary process. This is why it is good practice as per the S.I 146/2000 that potential disciplinary issues are flagged well in advance and preferably, in writing by the company.

As management have confirmed that the verbal warning is spent, I trust that it will have no future bearing on the worker. It is also encouraging that the union and management have recently reviewed the procedures.

In terms of the effects of the procedural flaws on the worker, he was certainly disadvantaged in that he had no time to consider the allegations against him. His representative outlined that he was required to take sick leave over the subsequent months and his income was affected.

Given the circumstances of this case, I recommend that the worker should be afforded two additional days annual leave as a once off gesture from management.

Also, as the “communication issue with the supervisor” was first raised during the disciplinary process, I recommend that the parties deal with this as per the normal company procedures which include voluntary independent mediation.

Disciplinary Procedures