Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

  A Distribution Manager

A Distribution Company

Representatives

                     Self-represented

 Self-represented

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 - 00003329

24/10/2024

Having worked for the Employer since November 2011, and now occupying a managerial role, the Complainant referred this Complaint under S13 of the Industrial relations Act relating to a disciplinary sanction.

The issue is the use, or non-use, of agreed procedures to deal with disciplinary matters and the resulting effect of a final warning on the Worker file; contrary to agreed procedures and the expectations of natural justice.

The Worker received an email from the Employer that  described itself as a written warning related to an issue with a customer driver. This caused the Worker alarm and put him in fear of his livelihood causing him some distress and anxiety.

The Worker responded that the warning contained within the email did not follow the correct and agreed procedures as per the employee handbook. Further, that the matter was unduly escalated given that he had not received any other warnings prior to this; and his rejection of the warning was not answered.

It was a matter of principle for the Worker that he had acted to protect another employee that led to this issue arising. Although no investigation appears to have been concluded regarding that issue, nor to ground a disciplinary notice. The Worker accepted that he could have handled that issue better but pointed out that he had no management training. The Worker expressed that this situation was a matter of some daily distress to him, and he is in fear of losing his job

Other issues arose with the Worker believing he was accused of having secret meetings with other staff and in recent times the Worker’s hours of work had been reduced and his earnings curtailed.

The “final warning” on the file was a significant issue for the Worker and although it had now been removed, as agreed, he found on his own investigation that documents surrounding the issue were still on file which the Employer pointed out was not intentional and had been overlooked.

The Employer explained to the hearing that he was not a person to look for conflict and was upset at the breakdown on the working relationship with the Worker. He presented himself as being conciliatory and in search of a resolution and anxious to put the matter behind them.

Having already discussed some of the matters with the Worker he had removed the warning from the file at their request and in the course of the hearing the Employer offered to remove the surrounding emails given the stress and anxiety for the Worker and expressed surprise and regret that the Worker had felt that way. The Employer described this as an oversight on his own part.

It was expressed as a rare occurrence for the Employer to have to deal with issues of this nature and it arose that the company HR policies may be in need of a refresh having been written in 2019.

The Employer answered the issue of the curtailment of working hours; that these are completely unrelated.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties and questions of my own that arose in the course of my investigation into the merits of the dispute.

I am of the view that the Worker is earnest in their complaint and has found it difficult to accept the written warning, arising in the manner it did. This has clearly been exacerbated by the failure in procedures and lack of investigation prior to the sanction.

Likewise, I am of the view of the earnestness of the Employer in wishing to deal with the matter and that they had not set out to cause the anxiety that resulted for the Worker. This is demonstrated by the Employer removing the warning from the file previously and offering, during my investigation, to remove the surrounding documents left in oversight. It would appear to the me that this was not conscious and arises from a lack of familiarity with managerial processes of this nature.

It was evident that issues of this nature are not a common occurrence for the Employer and it is regrettable that the relationship breakdown has occurred. In making a recommendation to resolve the issue I stress that my objective is to allow for  the repair of the relationship and address underlying issues. However, it is incumbent upon the parties to leave the matter behind and move forward.

It is for the Employer to have proper agreed processes in place and whilst having them is also important to follow these as set out. It appears from my investigation that the HR policies are in need of refresh and updating, training and communication.

Following on from this is the need for the Employer to provide relevant staff, including themselves, of the requisite training to carry out the processes correctly and fairly. Additionally, from a managerial perspective a review of communication processes would also be helpful to prevent issues escalating into formal processes; where this is possible.

Addressing the upset and anxiety caused in the circumstances where this matter has arisen from a failure of process and communications, and to help both parties put the matter behind them I believe a confidential ex-gratia sum be paid to the Worker in recognition of the inconvenience endured from the procedures.

I cannot address the matter of reduced working hours given that it is not properly referred to the Commission and I have heard no details of the same. However, I would urge the parties to engage on the issue to ensure that there is at least a full understanding of the matter.

non-use of procedures, communication, updating of policies