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

LCR22140

FULL RECOMMENDATION
CD/19/89
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22140
CA-00025399-001

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES :
SOUTHWEST DOCTORS ON CALL LIMITED

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Treacy
SUBJECT:
1. The case concerns a written warning.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Employer said that an incident arose in the carpark of the Employer which resulted in the written warning. The Worker was offered the opportunity to apologise and was informed if she did the matter would be finalised. This did not happen.

The Union of behalf of the Worker said that the imposition of a written warning was without any objective justification or objective grounds.
On the 6 March 2019, the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4 September 2019.

WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Worker has worked for the Employer for fourteen years without incident.

2. The Employer failed to follow due process in line with their grievance policy.

3. The imposition of a twelve-month warning is not justified.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:


4. 1. The Worker raised her voice in a manner which was unprofessional and unwarranted.

2. She was issued with a written warning in accordance with the Disciplinary Policy.
3. The Worker did not appeal the warning.

RECOMMENDATION :

The issue in dispute between the parties refers to the issuing of a written warning. It was clear from the submissions of the parties that the person who made the complaint was also the person who investigated the issue and decided to issue the written warning. The Employer’s grievance and disciplinary procedure was not followed. The Court finds that procedure followed was fundamentally flawed and that it was not a fair procedure . The Court recommends the removal of the written warning and that no reference to the warning be retained.

The Court so recommends.





Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
CR ______________________
28 November, 2019 Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.