Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

A Bus Company

Representatives

Colleen Minihane SIPTU

 Senior Employee Relations Manager

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 - 00003879

27/02/2025

The Worker was employed since 2000 in his role as a bus driver. He was represented by Ms Colleen Minihane. Submissions were received and relied upon by the Worker.

The Employer was represented by Senior Employee Relations Manager. Again submissions were received and relied upon.

The Worker, a long-serving employee with 25 years of unblemished service, received a written warning for an alleged absence without leave on a date in Augus 2024. The absence was due to a family emergency, which the Worker communicated to their line manager the day before, requesting leave and apologising for the short notice.

The manager offered only a half-day, which the Worker declined due to concerns about potential delays in completing duties. The Worker expected a follow-up confirmation, which did not occur, and proceeded to take the day off.

The Worker had previously raised repeated concerns about the digital holiday booking system introduced in 2023, citing difficulty due to limited digital literacy. These concerns were communicated to management but were not adequately addressed.

A meeting was held to discuss the absence, followed by a disciplinary hearing. Despite explaining the circumstances, the Worker was issued a written warning.

The Worker asserts that:

·        The absence was necessary and communicated in good faith.

·        The lack of digital skills and support contributed to the misunderstanding.

·        The disciplinary action does not reflect the Worker’s long-standing service and commitment.

Following the issuance of a written warning, the Worker appealed the sanction on 19th December 2024, citing the following grounds:

·        The manager never explicitly confirmed that the leave request was denied.

·        The manager’s account of the conversation was not independently verified by the employer.

·        In the absence of such verification, the Worker argues that disciplinary action was unjustified.

Despite these points, the appeal was unsuccessfully upheld by a senior manager in a letter dated 7th January 2025.

On the morning prior to the absence, the Worker approached their line manager to request annual leave for the following day in August 2024. Due to significant operational constraints, including a shortage of 42 drivers during peak summer service, the manager declined the request.

In an effort to accommodate the Worker, the manager offered a compromise: the Worker could operate the first part of their scheduled duty and then leave early, while still receiving full pay. This offer was made despite the inconvenience to the Employer and was considered reasonable and fair under the circumstances.

However, the Worker rejected the compromise and stated they would take the full day off regardless. The manager reiterated that the leave was not approved, and the Worker remained rostered for their full duty.

The Employer maintains that:

·        The Worker was clearly informed that leave was not granted.

·        A reasonable alternative was offered and refused.

·        The Worker’s actions constituted a deliberate breach of duty.

The disciplinary process followed was fair and appropriate, including an appeal which upheld the original decision.

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

There was a dispute between the parties as to what was said and the tone of conversation between the Worker and his Line Manager. It is acknowledged that there was no record of a statement in the disciplinary documentation from the line manager to support this complaint. It is further accepted that there was no mention by the Worker or Employer of such an issue noted in the minutes of the investigation meetings. Such comments are unhelpful where the aim of the industrial relations process where the aim is to seek a resolution, not to create further conflict.  

However, the allegation against the Worker thorough the disciplinary was his failure to attend for work on 16 August 2024.

No issues were raised as regards the disciplinary procedure followed by the Employer. The appeal was solely in relation to the sanction which, when asked, the Worker said he should never have received after 25 years of unblemished service. He also sought to be paid for the day where it was submitted was a second sanction.

Upon inquiry, the Worker outlined that the compromise was not sufficient where the traffic or a breakdown would delay his return to the depot for up to 15 mins where his appointments with three different professions relating to a family matters began at 9.15am. He stated he did not seek to move his appointments. He stated there was a bus which left 10 mins after his route so passengers would not be at a loss.

Having regard for the compromise offered by the line manager on 15 August 2024, this was very fair offer. Passengers relied on the Worker attending work to get to work and appointments. Even if the bus had been delay returning to the depot, it was entirely reasonable for the Worker to seek to move his appointment by 10-15 minutes.

It is not accepted that the Worker was waiting for his line manager to revert to him on 15 August 2024 as to whether he could have the day off. It was clear that when the Worker rejected the offer of a shorter working hours, he ought to have understood that he was not authorised to take the entire day off. Even if he was still in doubt at the end of the day, it was incumbent on him he to clarified with his line manager rather than deciding not to attend work.

Given that a warning was the lowest level of sanction in the disciplinary procedure, I find that it was proportionate.

IR – Sanction