LCR23117

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-0052825 (CA-00064660-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 4 November 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 14 October 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“Having considered the submissions of both parties, I do not recommend in favour of the worker.’’

A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 February 2025.

DECISION:

Background

This is an appeal by the Worker of Recommendation ADJ-00052825-CA00064660-001 of an Adjudication Officer in respect of the Worker’s compliant arising from a disciplinary sanction. The Adjudication Officer did not uphold his complaint.

The Worker was the subject of a complaint made to GSOC which following investigation was then referred to An Garda Siochana for internal investigation. Despite denying the allegations the Worker was found to be in breach of discipline in respect of two of the three charges by the Deciding Officer on 3 November 2023. The sanction imposed was a formal reprimand and a once off reduction of €200 in pay. The Worker was informed of the decision on 10 November 2023. On 16 November 2023 in accordance with the relevant regulations, and the time limits set out in same, the Worker submitted a formal request for an appeal/review of the decision of the Deciding Officer. He outlined his ground for appeal as per Regulation 19(5) of the Garda Siochana (Discipline) Regulations 2007.  On the same date he received verbal confirmation that his appeal/review had been received. On 4 December 2023, he received written confirmation that his appeal/review had been received and was in order.

On 5 December 2023 the Worker wrote to the Employer outlining that the timelines for processing his appeal/review had not been complied with and seeking that the findings and sanctions be expunged as a result.  On 9 January 2024 the Worker received an email confirming that the decision of the deciding Officer had been upheld following review /appeal.

As the appeal/review was lodged on 16 November 2023 the outcome of same should have been notified to the Worker no later than 30 November 2023 (14 days). Instead, it was issued some 40 days after the deadline had passed.  This constitutes a clear breach of the procedural requirements. The Worker continued to seek to have the findings and sanctions expunged as management had not complied with the timelines set out in the regulations but to not avail. 

The Employer accepted the timelines set out by the Complainant’s representative and that there had been a delay contrary to the timelines set out in the procedure.  They submitted that while the delay was regrettable no prejudice arose to the Worker arising from same. The Employer submitted that no basis has been put forward for the proposition that a delay in the process should render the disciplinary process sanction void. This would be unworkable and disproportionate in any workplace.

The representative for the Worker confirmed that there was no provision in the procedure which outlined what should happen if the timelines were not complied it, and there was no provisions that a sanction should be   expunged if the timelines were not complied with.

Discussion

Where timelines are contained in a process it is incumbent on the parties to ensure they are complied with otherwise the procedure falls into disrepute. For the Employer to state that Christmas was part of the reason for the delay is not credible, as it is an event that occurs annually and is flagged well in advance. However, neither is there a basis for the proposition that because timelines were not complied with the quid pro quo should be that the sanction is expunged.

Decision

The Court upholds the decision of the Adjudication Officer. The appeal fails.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
12 March 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.