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

LCR22094

FULL RECOMMENDATION
CD/19/187
DECISION NO. LCR22094
ADJ-00019024 CA-00024383-001

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES :
OUR LADY'S HOSPICE AND CARE SERVICES
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' FEDERATION)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Geraghty
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy
SUBJECT:
1. An Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision Nos. ADJ-00019024 and CA-00024383-001.


BACKGROUND:

2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 2 May 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued his Recommendation.

The Company appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 23 May 2019 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 31 July 2019.

DECISION :

It is a well established principle that this Court does not attempt to second guess the findings on facts in disciplinary investigations but, rather, examines the processes used to determine if they were fair. In the instant case, the Claimant has raised questions about the fairness of the process used by his Employer. There is validity in some of these questions but the Court is not satisfied that the level of unfairness in the disciplinary process is at a level to warrant the Court overturning the outcome.

The Court, therefore, upholds the Adjudication Officer’s decision.

However, the Court would question whether a verbal exchange between two colleagues of the nature described to the Court in the instant case was of sufficient significance to warrant a disciplinary investigation and whether an attempt at mediation might have been a better alternative course of action to address the matter at the time.

One of the valid concerns expressed by the Claimant is the fact that he was transferred from the ward after a complaint by a witness to the original verbal altercation despite the fact that this second complaint was not upheld. Although the Claimant has not expressed a wish to return to work on the ward, the Court notes with approval the assurance given by the Employer that there is no on-going ban on him doing so.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Tom Geraghty
DC ______________________
20 September 2019 Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.