FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged denial of fair procedure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker in relation to the alleged lack of fair procedures followed by her Employer. The Worker is currently employed as a Sales Assistant at the Cardiffsbridge Road, Finglas branch of Dunnes Stores. The Worker is responsible for the carrying out of a number of duties in the store however her main area of responsibility is the operation of a checkout till. In September 2012, the Worker was requested to attend a meeting with Management. At the meeting the Worker was informed that due to numerous discrepancies in her till balancing amounts she was being issued with a sanction of a three-day unpaid suspension period. The Worker appealed the sanction however Management's decision remained unchanged and the sanction was enforced. The Worker contends that she was treated unfairly as a result of Management's lack of fair and transparent Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.
On the 5th December, 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 21st March, 2013. The Employer was not present and was not represented at the hearing.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was treated in an inequitable manner and the sanction imposed on her was harsh in nature.
2. The Worker was not given any prior notice before attending the meeting with Management and was not afforded the opportunity to respond to allegations made by Management in relation to the till discrepancies.
3. The Employer failed to carry out a fair and impartial investigation into the matter before making the decision to penalise the Worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
Dunnes Stores did not attend the hearing and made no submissions to the Court regarding the issues in dispute.
Having considered the extensive written and oral submissions of the Worker involved the Court finds that the disciplinary procedure employed by the Company in this case did not accord with, and indeed falls considerably short, of the provisions of S.I. No 146 of 2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. Accordingly the Court finds that the Worker was not afforded fair treatment by the Company in the management of this matter. The Court accordingly finds that the process was flawed. All decisions that emanated from the process are therefore unsafe and cannot stand.
On that basis the Court recommends that the Company set aside the sanctions it has taken against the Worker, restore to her the three days' pay she was deducted as a result of the suspension and remove all references to the matter from her personnel record.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th April 2013______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.