Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Firefighter

A Local Authority

Representatives

Maura Cahalan Forsa

Tomas Redmond Dublin City Council

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 - 00003056

28/08/2024

The Worker commenced his employment as a Firefighter with the Employer on 6 February 1995. He stated that management did not follow due process and breached their own procedures in relation to the manner in which disciplinary action against him was taken.

The Worker requested a days’ leave on 28 September 2023 for 9 October 2023. Although this leave request was approved, he was subsequently informed that the leave request was rejected on 4 October 2023. As a result, the Worker changed his appointment time to 8 15am so that he could begin work at his usual location at 9am. He was informed on 5 October 2023 that he would have to attend at HQ at 9am but told the Employer that he would not be able to do so because of his appointment.

When he attended at his usual location at 9am on 9 October 2023, he was informed during the parade that he should be at HQ. Although, the Worker stated that he could not attend HQ for personal reasons, he was informed that if he did not do so he could be charged. Further to this discussion, the Worker attended at HQ. Although he subsequently attended at HQ, he was given a verbal warning on 16 October 2023. Despite having made three appeals of the decision, the warning still stood.

On 20 November 2023, the Worker also initiated a grievance in relation to the way he had been treated by the Employer around the issue but he was informed on 6 January 2024 that his grievance was not upheld. Although he was given the opportunity to appeal the outcome, he chose not to do so.  

On 9 October 2023, the Worker was asked to attend at headquarters but refused to do so. When he was subsequently asked why he failed to attend, he cited “personal reasons” but when questioned on what he meant by this, he further refused to expand any further.

As a result of his failure to adhere to a reasonable instruction or give plausible reasons for not doing so, the Employer issued him with a verbal warning on 16 October 2023.

He appealed the verbal warning on 17 October 2023 but was informed on 31 October 2023 that his appeal was not successful. He was then given the opportunity to initiate a second appeal but was informed on 22 December 2023 that his second appeal was also unsuccessful. The Worker then made a final appeal to the Human Resources Department and was informed on 16 January 2024 that this appeal was also unsuccessful. 

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

I note that the warning was issued to the Worker on 16 October 2023 and that it lapsed on 15 April 2024, after a period of six months.

As the warning has expired, I recommend that the Worker deems this aspect of the dispute to be closed.

Separately, I find that the Worker should have exhausted the internal grievance procedure and appealed the outcome of the grievance internally within the 10 day period stipulated in the outcome letter instead of referring the matter to the WRC for investigation.

As the internal appeal period in respect of the grievance has expired, I also recommend that the Worker deems this aspect of the dispute to be closed.