Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Mechanical Fitter

Manufacturing Employer

Representatives

Mark Dobbyn Connect Trade Union

Ms Jennifer Cashman RDJ LLP

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 - 00003006

16/08/2024

The Worker commenced employment in June 1995 as a mechanical fitter and is currently still employed. The Worker was alleged to have engaged in unacceptable behaviour towards a supervisor and after an investigation of his behaviour as well as his counterclaim of bullying and harassment, a written warning was issued to him in May 2024. The Worker appealed the sanction and is seeking for it to be rescinded because he believes the Employer did not treat him fairly in the manner in which it came to its decision.

The Employer submits the warning was reasonable and proportionate.

On 11 October 2021, the Worker reported being verbally attacked three times by a supervisor, Mr A, culminating in a breach of the dignity at work policies. He submits his formal bullying and harassment complaint against Mr A , submitted in 2022, was delayed and poorly managed by HR.

The Worker faced what he termed were disciplinary action over “trivial issues,” such as "tucking in his shirt," which was not a formal company rule. Investigations into his case, were outsourced to an external person, Mr B whom he believes cleared him of most allegations, except for an instance where he allegedly told Mr A to "f…k off."

He argued that the handling of his case was prejudicial, with decisions made against him before he could present his side. He claims the appeal process was flawed and was reviewed by a subordinate of the HR manager, which was contrary to the Employer /Union Agreement.

The Worker claimed that the prolonged targeting and mishandling of his complaints caused significant stress and health issues, including two heart operations. He believes his case was mishandled, that there were procedural breaches and a failure to uphold natural justice.

Following allegations against the Worker, the Employer appointed an independent investigator, Mr B, to conduct an inquiry. In his report dated 31st January 2024, Mr found that:

·        The Worker directed offensive language ("F**k off") at his supervisor on 11 October 2021, which was deemed disrespectful and a challenge to authority.

·        The Worker displayed unreasonable and inappropriate behaviour outside the administration offices.

Based on these findings, a disciplinary meeting was held on 22 March 2024, chaired by the HR Manager. The Worker, represented by his union official, was given the opportunity to respond. Following the meeting, the HR Manager issued a written warning to the Worker, effective for 12 months, as confirmed in a letter dated 3 May 2024.

The Worker appealed this decision to Mr C. The Employer acknowledges that appeals would normally be directed to the Plant Manager, but it was always intended that relatively minor appeals, such as those concerning a written warning, would be handled by another member of management. An appeal hearing took place on 2 July 2024, during which the Worker and his representative reiterated their grounds for appeal. Mr C upheld the original decision, stating that no new evidence had been presented to alter the outcome, and confirmed the finality of the appeal in his letter.

The Worker subsequently referred the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), contesting the imposition of the written warning. The Worker did not raise any concerns about the procedures followed by the Employer but instead focused on the proportionality of the sanction.

The Employer maintains that the written warning was reasonable and proportionate, issued following a fair and thorough process that adhered to the agreed disciplinary procedures. They argue that the role of the WRC is not to rehear the internal disciplinary case but to assess whether the agreed procedures were properly followed.

The Employer asserts that the burden is on the Worker to demonstrate procedural flaws but contends that no such flaws occurred. They request that the Adjudication Officer uphold the validity of the written warning.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I explained to both parties that it was not my role to re-examine the circumstances leading to the imposition of the written warning but instead to examine whether the Worker was subject to fair procedures.

The principle of natural justice is a cornerstone of fair disciplinary procedures in the workplace. It ensures that all parties involved are treated fairly, impartially, and within a reasonable timeframe. In this case over 2.5 years between the incident and the sanction. I am satisfied that there was a separate complaint initiated by the Worker that was also investigated by the investigator. This would have undoubtedly elongated the process. The Worker also suffered from significant health issues which resulted in considerable periods of absences, but the Employer has a responsibility to all affected staff, be it the Worker or any affected colleague, to deal with allegations of gross misconduct quickly. This delay undermined the fairness and validity of the disciplinary process for the following reasons:

1. Unreasonable Delay Breaches Procedural Fairness

Timeliness is critical in any disciplinary process. A delay of over 2.5 years to investigate and resolve an issue is not reasonable by any standard. Such delays often compromise the ability of the accused employee to present a robust defence. Memories fade, evidence may no longer be available, and the context surrounding the incident can become blurred. These factors create an unfair disadvantage to the employee, violating their right to a fair process.

 2. Undermining Confidence in the Process

A delay of this magnitude suggests a lack of urgency and due diligence by the Employer in addressing the matter. The Worker should not have been subjected to prolonged uncertainty about his reputation or potential consequences for an alleged incident.

3. Failure to Serve Justice

The fundamental aim of disciplinary action is to address inappropriate behaviour in a timely manner to ensure accountability, provide learning opportunities, and uphold workplace standards. By waiting over 2.5 years to address the matter, the disciplinary action loses its purpose. Issuing a warning at such a delayed stage no longer serves as an effective deterrent or corrective measure. Instead, it appears punitive and misaligned with the original intent of resolving the issue. Employers are normally expected to act promptly and proportionately in addressing allegations of misconduct to avoid such implications.

Given the significant delay in addressing the allegations, I find that the Employer has failed to serve natural justice in this matter. I find that the written warning issued to the Worker is therefore  procedurally flawed and should be withdrawn.

Industrial Relations Act 1969, Written Warning, Effluxion of Time.