LCR22563

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

FRS BUSINESS SERVICES T/A TURAS NUA
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

A WORKER

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00021170 CA-00027813-001, CA-00027814-001

BACKGROUND:

2. The Adjudication Officer found that a penalty had been imposed on the worker without a right of appeal and it was recommended that the Employer pay €3000 in compensation.

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 28 January 2020 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 February 2022.

DECISION :

Summary of Worker arguments

1. The Adjudication Officer was correct to find that the Worker had been treated badly by the Employer applying a Performance Improvement Plan, ‘PIP’, as a result of a disciplinary process and in denying an appeal. It was the correct decision to recommend compensation of €3000 for this. However, this was not an adequate recognition of what occurred.

2. The Worker was bullied by the Employer.

3. The minutes of a disciplinary meeting were falsified.

4. The Worker was penalised and ultimately dismissed for appropriate actions. She was penalised for having raised a legitimate matter at a training course and for having tried to help customers by providing information.

Summary of Employer arguments

1. The Adjudication Officer erred in the Recommendation. The Worker was put on a PIP as an alternative to possible disciplinary action in order to assist her in her role.

2. The Worker was not bullied. Nothing claimed by her to have occurred meets the definition of bullying in the WRC Code of Practice. The Employer was entitled to give her feed-back and guidance and to suggest reasonable corrective action.

3. There was no falsification of documents. There were two different versions of minutes based on notes taken by the two parties to a meeting, something that is common and unexceptional, and amendments suggested by the Worker were taken into account.

4. The Worker was not dismissed for a matter raised at a training course. Detailed reasons for her dismissal were set out in her letter of dismissal.

Recommendation.

The Court experienced considerable difficulty in getting the Worker to focus and to explain the exact nature of the dispute with the necessary clarity. The summary set out above is the Court’s attempt to clarify the full nature of her grievance.

The Court does not believe that it should find fault with the Employer for attempting to deal with any perceived performance issues through the operation of a PIP, as an alternative to the possible imposition of a disciplinary penalty, and can make no recommendation that compensation be paid to the Worker for the Employer having done so. The Court’s Recommendation sets aside the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer in this regard.

The Court accepts the arguments put forward by the Employer in respect of the other matters and, noting that there is no longer an employment relationship, recommends that the parties move on.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
CN	______________________
07 March 2022	Deputy Chairman