This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

  Return to Search

LCR22031

FULL RECOMMENDATION
CD/19/91
DECISION NO. LCR22031
ADJ-00017165 CA-00022223-001

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES :
BUS EIREANN

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Haugh
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Treacy
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00017165.


BACKGROUND:

2. The case before the Court concerns the Claimant's appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00017165. The dispute relates specifically to the Claimant's claim to have two separate sanctions of dismissal imposed on him expunged and removed from his personnel file in their entirety. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 12th March 2019 the Claimant appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st May, 2019.

The Employer was not present and was not represented at the hearing.

The following is the Decision of the Court:-




DECISION :

This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal brought by the Complainant against a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00017165, dated 5 March 2019) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Court received the Notice of Appeal on 12 March 2019 and Bus Éireann (‘the Company’) was duly notified. However, the Company was not represented at the hearing of the appeal in Limerick on 21 May 2019.

The Complainant was dismissed by the Company from his employment as a bus driver on two occasions in 2017: 23 March 2017 and 15 August 2015. The Complainant exercised his right of appeal in respect of both decisions to dismiss him. However, it appears that in neither case was his appeal processed by the Company. The Adjudication Officer recommended as follows:

  • “I recommend that as the second dismissal … supersedes the first dismissal … that the original dismissal be expunged from the Complainant’s file and that an Appeal Hearing of the dismissal grounds dated August 8th 2017 be held at the earliest possible opportunity, but not later than two months from the date of this decision (sic) …”.
The Complainant also advised the Court of a further disciplinary allegation raised against him in January 2019 but which related to events that occurred in 2017 and 2018. This matter was also before the Adjudication Officer but does not form part of his Recommendation. The Worker is seeking to have both dismissals and the further disciplinary matter expunged from his personnel file.

Decision

Having considered the history of this dispute as outlined in the Complainant’s written submission, the Court is of the view that both decisions taken to dismiss the Complainant in 2017, along with the additional disciplinary charge raised against him in January 2019, should be expunged from his disciplinary record. However, the Complainant should be placed on probation in like manner to a newly-recruited employee for a period of twelve months from the date of this decision. He should be appropriately monitored by the Company for the duration of that period and the result of the process should be communicated in writing to him at the expiry of the probationary period.

The Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
25th June 2019 ______________________
SC Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.