Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Security Personnel

Security Force

Representatives

Mr. Conor Staunton, Industrial Relations Officer

Ms. MP Guinness, instructed by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

31/10/2021

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 10th May 1991. The Worker was a permanent, full-time member of staff. While the Worker was employed on the date of referral of the dispute, he retired shortly thereafter, with the employment ending on 2nd November 2021.

On 31st October 2021, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that he was subjected to an extraordinarily long period of suspension on foot of a series of extremely serious allegations. He submitted that the length of this suspension, coupled with the lack of engagement on the part of the Employer, rendered the process entirely unfair towards him. In denying the allegations raised by the Worker, the Employer submitted that much of the length of the suspension arose due to matters outside of their control, in particular an ongoing parallel investigation. They submitted that when this process finalised, they engaged with the Worker in good time in relation to any employment issues that arose during the process, with no findings being made against him in this regard.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 15th December 2023. This hearing conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. These submissions were expanded upon and contested by the opposing side in the course of the hearing.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute was raised at any stage of the proceedings.

Following a long and unblemished career, the Worker was suspended from duty on 14th October 2015. Following a lengthy process, involving numerous external bodies, the Worker was found to have no case to answer in relation to these matters. However, prior to this suspension being lifted, the Worker was informed that he would remain on suspension following receipt of a further set of allegations on 30th April 2019.

Following a further protracted procedure, the Worker was informed on 16th June 2020 that no criminal proceedings were to be brought in respect of the allegations as raised. Thereafter, in October 2020, the Worker was informed that he would be interviewed as part of an internal disciplinary matter. On 26th February 2021, the Worker was again interviewed by an alternative member of management. Thereafter, the matter proceeded to an internal disciplinary hearing on 21st July 2021. Following a brief consideration of the relevant issues, the disciplinary hearing concluded that the Worker had no case to answer, and the suspension being lifted on 27th July 2021. In circumstances whereby the Worker was approaching retirement, he used some of his accrued annual leave to bring him to his date of retirement, some two days following the referral of the dispute, and did not return to active duty at any time. 

By submission, the Worker submitted that his natural and contractual rights had not been respected throughout the process. In this regard, he submitted that the duration of his suspension was extraordinarily long in nature, with significant financial and professional consequences for him. In addition to the foregoing, the Worker submitted the Employer failed to properly investigate a grievance raised by him in relation to these matters. In this regard, while the relevant procedure states that matters in relation to disciplinary processes are excluded from its scope, the Worker submitted that this was an overly narrow interpretation of the document and submitted that the Employer further abdicated their responsibilities in this regard.

At the outset, the Employer denied the Worker’s allegations and stated that all matters raised by examined thoroughly and in good time.

Regarding the period of suspension, the Employer agreed that these arose as a consequence of two separate allegations raised against the Worker. Given the serious nature of the allegations, these matters were referred to the relevant bodies for investigation. In this regard, from an employment perspective, the investigation into the alleged wrong-doing by the Worker was paused pending the completion of this process. The Employer submitted that once they received notification that this process had finalised, they commenced their own internal procedure regarding any employment issues arising from the allegations. In this regard, they submitted that this process commenced shortly thereafter, with no sanction being imposed on the Worker following a thorough investigation. In the days following this finding, the Worker was removed from suspension and was permitted to re-commence his duties.

By submission, the Employer stated that they respected all of the Worker’s natural and contractual rights throughout this process. While they accepted that the Worker was on suspension for a significant period of time, they submitted that the vast majority of the same can be accounted for by the parallel investigation. Regarding the terms of the Worker’s suspension, they Employer further submitted that they abided by the terms of the relevant procedure in respect to the payment during this period. Finally, regarding the grievance raised by the Worker, the Employer stated that the terms of the policy are clear in that matter relating to disciplinary issues fall outside its ambit.

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

The present dispute involves a complaint by the Worker that the Employer subjected him to suspension of extraordinary duration, and that they did not respect his natural or contractual rights during the process that followed the same.

Regarding the suspension itself, it is common case that the majority of the same occurred whilst a parallel investigation was underway. While the Worker clearly has strong views in relation to the same, it is beyond the remit of the impleaded Act to interfere with or in any way evaluate this portion of the investigation. In this regard, the position of the Employer was that two investigations were being held in parallel regarding the allegations raised against the Worker, with the employment related aspect of the same being held in abeyance until such a time as the criminal investigation had concluded. In circumstances whereby the these investigation involve  different burdens of proof and entirely different statutory processes, such a position is clearly reasonable, particularly in light of the nature and gravity of the allegations raised against the Worker.

In this regard, the first point to note is that following the finalisation of the parallel investigations, no further meeting occurred for a period of four months. While it is noted that the person charged with conducting the investigation was on maternity leave at the relevant time, the Employer is a large organisation and has ample resources substitute an investigator for these purposes. Indeed, it is noted that the meeting held in October 2020 was conducted by a different investigator assigned for this purpose. Thereafter, it became apparent that this interview had to be abandoned on procedural grounds, with the initial investigator conducting the interview on her return from maternity leave, in February 2021.

Having regard to the foregoing sequence of events it is apparent that following the completion of parallel investigation, the Worker was obliged to wait for a further ten months to have a correctly constituted investigation meeting. While the Employer cannot be held accountable for the duration of the suspension prior to the same, this delay falls firmly within their control and the breach in this respect lies with them. In addition to the same, the Employer was well aware of the duration of the Worker’s suspension to this point, and in light of the same, it would be expected that the internal procedure thereafter would be conducted within a reasonable expeditious timeframe. Finally, while it is common case that the investigation by the alternative investigator had to be abandoned on procedural grounds, it is not apparent what constituted these grounds or on what basis that initial investigator had to retain ownership of the investigation whilst on a period of extended statutory leave. 

Following the completion of this interview, the Worker was called to a disciplinary meeting some five months later. Again, while it is accepted that the convening of the panel in this regard may take some time, this again represents an inordinate delay for a large, well-resourced organisation. Thereafter, it is common case that the disciplinary panel made no findings against the Worker and the process finalised.

Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, it is apparent that while the majority of the Worker’s suspension can be accounted for by the parallel investigation, the final 14 months cannot. While it is accepted that the Employer has detailed internal procedures regarding the investigation of disciplinary issues, such a duration represents an entirely inappropriate delay in respect to a matter that already been thoroughly investigated and in respect of an employee that had endured an extraordinarily long suspension to that date. In such circumstances, I recommend in favour of the Worker in relation to this portion of the dispute.

Regarding the other element of the dispute, it is apparent that the Employer’s internal procedures expressly exclude matter relating to disciplinary matters from their remit. As the policy is clear in this regard, I find that the Employer did not act unreasonable in complying with the same.