Anonymised Parties

Driver

Waste disposal company.

Representatives

SIPTU

Company HR Business Partner

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 - 00001003

11/01/2023

 The worker has referred a dispute with his employer concerning the absence of fair procedures and proportionality in their decision to dismiss him on 28/2/2022.

He was employed as a driver with the employer’s waste collection service from 19/5/2021 until 28/2/22.

He earned €3500 gross per month.

He referred his dispute to the WRC on 11/1/2023.

The worker commenced employment on 19/5/2021 as a driver with the employer’s medical waste disposal company moving bins from one location to another

It was a two-person job.

The employer failed to provide him with the necessary training in the use of handheld scanners for bins unlike other workers who were trained. This resulted in delays in completing his work.

He met the employer on 19/10/21 at a probation review meeting concerning the length of time it was taking him to do certain tasks. At a later review meeting in November, the employer told him that improvements in his standard of work were required by 9/1/22. The Operations Manager sent the worker an email on 22/12/21, setting out the areas for improvement.

He states that he was denied union representation at a probation review meeting on 11/1/21. The employer behaved in an intimidatory manner towards him. The employers chided him for receiving a fixed penalty notice for driving through a yellow traffic light. He felt that the gardai were unfair to him in giving him a fixed penalty. He confirmed that he did not appeal this notice.

On 11/2/21 he handed in a report of the accident with the company vehicle that actually happened on 7/2/21.

He was called to a disciplinary meeting on 23/2/21 with the Manager in charge of routing, but it was an investigation – cum disciplinary meeting rolled in to one as the disciplinary meeting at which he was dismissed by the Driving Supervisor occurred on 28/2/22.

The same parties, the Driving Supervisor, the Transport Manager and the Manager in charge of routing were involved in the probationary hearings as in the disciplinary hearings. The worker maintains that different people should have been involved in the different stages.

He is appealing on the grounds that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate, and the employer didn’t follow their own disciplinary procedures.

He started in another job in August 23. He is employed on a lesser wage.

The employer states that they dismissed the worker at the end of an extended probationary period as he was unable to meet their work standards and, in addition, he had had two accidents with the company vehicle and received a fixed penalty charge in a third incident. Furthermore, he allowed his licence for driving the trucks for which he was hired to drive to lapse and was unable to do the work for which he was contracted for a period of 2 weeks.

The employer denies his claim that he received inadequate training. They stated that they have an online training system. The worked was assigned to an experienced shunter for a period of 2 weeks so as to familiarise himself with his duties. To the employer’s representative’s knowledge, the worker never came back after that 2-week period to state he required more training. He was assigned to more experienced personnel at different stages to assist him.

During his probationary period, he was reminded on multiple occasions about the time he was taking to do tasks, timekeeping, filling in time sheets and how improvements were imperative.

His period of probation had been extended to give him time to improve and some improvements were evident in his timekeeping. But his standard of application to the job did not reach the standard required to confirm his appointment at the end of the probationary period. Furthermore, after three incidents with a company vehicle and his failure to ensure his licence was up to date which resulted in him being unavailable to work for a period of two weeks, the employer took him through a disciplinary process in accordance with their own policies as they apply to employees on probation. Contrary to what he states, the employer did give him an opportunity to improve in that they extended his probation by 3 months.

The decision to dismiss the worker was taken by the Routing Manager who had no involvement in the probationary review meetings.

The sanction was proportionate.

The employer requests that the employee’s claim should be rejected.

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

It is clear that justifiable concerns about the worker’s attitude and application to his work arose during the probationary period, manifested in the incidents with other vehicles, the traffic infringement, the failure to renew his licence, and the apparent scarcity of any sense of personal responsibility which should have been present in these situations.

However, the employer’s disciplinary process for employees on probation is subject to the disciplinary procedure which is underpinned by following principles:

“that we should ensure that the team member obtains natural justice and fair procedure which includes.

 The basis for the disciplinary procedure is clear i.e. the team member knows what he has done wrong

 The penalties are clear.

It is the case that the invite of the 14/2/23 to attend an investigation meeting on 23/2/23, as the first step in the disciplinary process, and nine months into his probationary period, only cited the latest damage caused to the company vehicle by the worker (he backed into another vehicle and damaged the wing mirror,) as the issue for investigation. The notification omitted to include earlier incidents which the investigation meeting actually addressed. These additional items, not notified to him, were combined to present a list of mishaps. This combination of issues was then considered at the disciplinary meeting which resulted in his dismissal.

The investigation meeting occurred in the absence of disclosure that it could lead to the complainant’s dismissal. This clearly was a departure from the employer’s own guarantee of transparency concerning the extent of, the  grading or gravity of the misconduct facing the worker and the potential penalties facing an employee for such misconduct.

 I find therefore that procedure did not contain the degree of transparency, guaranteed in the employer’s own disciplinary procedure, that the conduct under investigation could amount to a dismissible offence. The process was procedurally unfair.

Given that the employer departed from the fairness demanded of them in their own procedure, I recommend that the employer pay the worker €7000 in settlement of this dispute

Non- compliance with disciplinary procedures