LCR23068

CD/24/113

DECISION  NO.  LCR23068

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Mr Haugh
Employer Member:	Ms Doyle
Worker Member:	Mr Bell

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047929 (CA-00058896 IR-SC-00001798)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 5 April 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

 On 5 April 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

• I do not find in favour of the Worker and recommend that the Worker accepts that her employment was terminated arising from the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process in relation to her behaviour and timekeeping.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 November 2024.

DECISION:

DECISION

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by a Worker from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (IR-SC-00001798, dated 5 April 2024) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 5 April 2024. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 19 November 2024.

 

The Factual Background

The Worker was employed by Quantum Clean Global Technologies Limited (‘the Company’) as a Process Engineer from 5 September 2022 until 27 August 2023, the date on which the Company’s decision to terminate her employment for alleged misconduct comprising of ‘persistent issues with punctuality and attendance’ and ‘disrespectful behaviour in meetings towards Management’ took effect. The Worker’s annual gross salary was €51,315.00.

It is common case that the Worker received an Employee Handbook at the outset of her employment and that it contained both a grievance and a disciplinary policy. However, the Worker submits that she did not fully understand the Company’s disciplinary procedure and was unrepresented throughout the process until the appeals stage. She further submits that the allegations against her were not well-founded and came about in response to a complaint of bullying she had raised in June 2023. She points out that she successfully completed her probationary period during which no issues had arisen.

It is submitted on behalf of the Company that the combination of the Worker’s poor attendance and punctuality and her demeanour towards her Manager, Mr RB, at meetings caused Management to lose trust and confidence in her. The Company stands over the fairness and thoroughness of its procedures and submits that the Worker could have chosen a colleague from her team to support her during the investigation and disciplinary stages.

 

Discussion and Decision

Having carefully considered the Parties’ written and verbal submissions, the Court finds that the sanction of dismissal imposed on the Worker was disproportionate in all the circumstances. The Court further finds that Worker’s belief that the disciplinary process was in response to her complaint of bullying in the workplace to be credible having regard to the fact that it appears to have been initiated on the very day that the Worker was interviewed by Human Resources about her complaint.

In the Court’s view, the Worker should receive compensation equivalent to three months’ gross salary in consequence of the manner in which her employment was terminated by the Company. The Court, therefore, measures the compensation payable at €12,830.00.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
FC	______________________
21st November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.