INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY MULLANEYS SOLICITORS)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Ms Tanham
1. Appeal of Disciplinary Sanction.
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker in relation to his appeal of a disciplinary sanction imposed on him following a non-authorised absence from work. The Worker is currently employed by the Employer as a Retail Sales Assistant. On 20th September, 2011, the Worker requested to take annual leave on the 23rd and 24th September inclusive. The Worker was informed that his annual leave request could not be facilitated. However, the Worker failed to attend work on the days in question. Upon his return to work the Worker was suspended with pay pending an internal investigation. The Worker was then invited to attend an investigation meeting where he was advised that he was being issued with a final written warning that would remain on his personnel record for a period of twelve months. The Worker contends that he was prohibited from appealing the disciplinary sanction imposed on him by virtue of the fact that the final written was delivered to him when the timeframe for appeal had elapsed.
On the 31st May, 2012 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October, 2012.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. The Worker was treated in an inequitable manner and the disciplinary sanction imposed on him was harsh in nature.
2. The Worker notified his Employer that he would not be attending work on the days in question.
3. The Worker is seeking compensation as a result of the undue stress caused to him following this incident.
4. 1. The Worker took unauthorised leave in the full knowledge that his leave request had been refused by Management.
2. The sanction imposed on the Worker was in line with the Employer's disciplinary procedure.
3. The final written warning imposed on the Worker has now expired.
The Court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the company acted appropriately. The Court is further satisfied that the disciplinary sanction imposed on the Claimant was fair and proportionate to the misconduct of which the Claimant was guilty.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the workers claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th November 2012______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.