ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002583
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A social care worker | A section 38 voluntary agency |
Representatives | SIPTU | IBEC |
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 - 00002583 | 01/05/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Date of Hearing: 03/09/2024
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).
Background:
The worker was in employment with the employer for over 20 years. A number of allegations were made in relation to her conduct on a night shift on the 30 October 2022. A Trust in care investigation was commenced. The outcome of the investigation led to a disciplinary process, which ultimately resulted in a sanction of an oral warning effective from the 1 November 2022 for 6months. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker's complaint was that she was not afforded access to due process and fair procedures and that the entire process did not take into account representations made or evidence provided by the worker. She submitted that the process was flawed and sought to have the oral warning rescinded from her file. The worker filed her complaint on the 1 May 2024. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer's case was that in May 2023, the worker received a stage I oral warning following an investigation and disciplinary hearing under its Trust in Care Policy which was to be active on her file for six months. Following an appeal this outcome was amended so that the verbal warning was backdated to commence on the 1 November 2022 expiring 1 May 2023. It submitted that on the basis that the oral warning was no longer live on the worker's file, the claim was null and void. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The submissions from both sides combined ran to nearly 700 pages on the WRC case management system. I find that this was excessive for the type of case before me and the facts of the case.
On the basis that the oral warning having expired 12 months before this complaint was lodged with the WRC, I recommend that the parties agree that the referral was moot but that the Employer review its disciplinary procedure in the next 24 months to ensure it is up to date and in compliance with best practice. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Dated: 1st of November 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Referral moot due to expiration of oral warning |