ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001798
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Engineer | Engineering Company |
Representatives | Self | Melanie Mullins, The HR Suite |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00001798 | 19/09/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00001799 | 19/09/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 07/03/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. The parties are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
The Worker attended the hearing and she represented herself. The Employer was represented by Ms Melanie Mullins, The HR Suite.
I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific referral. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing in order to gain an understanding of the full extent of these disputes. At the end of the hearing both parties confirmed that they were satisfied that they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all their relevant information.
Background:
The Worker was employed by the Employer from 5/9/2022 until her dismissal on 27/7/2023. She believed that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal was unfair and that the issues in relation to her timekeeping were not dealt with appropriately. The Employer believes that the Worker was treated fairly at all times. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker provided a detailed timeline in relation to the events that led to her dismissal. She believes that the reasons for her dismissal were not correctly dealt with, and she did not agree with the minutes of the various meetings. The Worker also believes that a complaint she made under the Employer’s Dignity at Work policy did not address the concerns she had about the way her manager was dealing with her. The Worker believes that she was expected to work in an environment in which she was subjected to bullying and harassment. The Worker refutes the Employers position that she was disrespectful to her manager. The Worker states that this would be impossible as she was actually scared of him. She was disciplined in relation to timekeeping and yet she was allowed to have a flexible working arrangement. Her contract of employment only stated, “normal working hours” and did not provide specific times. She was also disciplined because she had some time off for various appointments, but she was never told what the procedure was for such eventualities. The Worker also submitted that she was getting mixed messages from her manager. She would tell him about an appointment, and he would say that it was ok, and he would tell her at their next meeting that it was not ok. This also happened in relation to her coffee breaks when she was told to have these at her desk while others were not told this. The Worker also had concerns about how working from home was managed. She had worked from home from September 2022 and then she was not allowed to do so. She had a right to a work-life balance, and she believes that if there were changes to her terms and conditions these should have been notified to her. She believes that her contract of employment was not up to date. The Worker believes that the Employer misunderstood her behaviour, and the disciplinary action has caused her a lot of issues, including mental health and employment reputation. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Worker was dismissed for reasons of gross misconduct, and she contributed wholly to this as a result of her conduct. There was a thorough investigation and subsequent disciplinary process, and she was afforded all her rights to natural justice throughout. The Employer is confident that their process was fully aligned with the SI 146/2002 Industrial Relations Act, 1990, (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (Declaration) Order 2000. The Worker’s dismissal was not unfair as it resulted wholly from her conduct. The Employer also notes that while other alternatives were considered but dismissal was the only appropriate sanction. The Worker has not provided any details of her current employment status or earnings or any attempts by her to gain alternative employment. In relation to the Workers dispute in relation to her complaint about the Dignity at Work Policy the Employer submits that she was provided with the Employer’s handbook and code of practice when she commenced employment. The Employer has a robust and clear process to deal with any complaints under this policy. The Worker’s complaint was subjected to a preliminary screening by an independent HR consultant, and she was also provided with a Contact Support Person. The Employer submits that the independent preliminary screening found that Workers’ complaint did not meet the definitions of bullying and harassment and she was advised that she could avail of the Employers grievance procedure if she wished to have these issues addressed in that way. She did not raise any grievance in relation to these matters. It is the Employer’s position that during the investigation and disciplinary process the Worker failed to understand or acknowledge that her behaviour towards management was unacceptable. She was always afforded fair procedures. The Worker contributed to her own dismissal due to the irrevocable breach of trust and her unacceptable behaviour. The Employer was left with no alternative but to dismiss the Worker. The Employer states that the Worker’s issues were dealt with appropriately and in a fair and transparent manner and in line with the Employer’s procedures. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
On review of the submissions, I am satisfied that the Employer adhered to the requirements of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and contained in (S.I 146 of 2000).
The Employer also has a comprehensive Dignity at Work policy in place and the Worker’s complaint was reviewed independently and found not to be within the remit of the policy. The alternative options, including the benefit of a Contact Support Person, of the grievance was explained to the Worker, but she did not avail of this. In that context the Worker has to accept responsibility for her own actions.
I do not find in favour of the Worker and recommend that the Worker accepts that her employment was terminated arising from the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process in relation to her behaviour and timekeeping. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I do not find in favour of the Worker and recommend that the Worker accepts that her employment was terminated arising from the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process in relation to her behaviour and timekeeping
Dated: 5th April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Dismissal. |