ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007993
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Accounts | Services |
Representatives | Michael Itaire Snr. Ethnic Voices Europe |
|
DISPUTE
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00010603-001 | 03/04/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 and following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
- The Complainant was employed with the Respondent from 6th January 2014 until she tendered her resignation on 31st July 2017. The Complainant was paid an annual salary of €34,000 and she worked 40 hours a week. The Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 3rd April 2017 in relation to a Disciplinary Sanction.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINAN’TS POSITION.
The Complainant’s function is to provide credit approval to clients of the Company in line with her Contract of Employment which sets out her functions with the Finance Team . The Complainant had approved a named property after she alleged the Accounts employees had done a credit check. She had been assigned a particular named property to check not a different property, that became the subject of an internal investigation. The issue arose when the property she had approved did not meet his financial liabilities of some €42,000.
The Complainant was working from home on 31st December 2016 when she received a phone call from the Team Leader, named. She was called to an investigation meeting on 4th January 2017 at which she explained the steps she had taken in relation to the named client which had been assigned to her. There was no VAT No. She had reverted to the Sales Team to secure the VAT NO but there was none. She matched her check which she had done with the Name of the Client she had been assigned and she gave 30 days credit. She attended the Investigation Meeting with a witness from another team. She was informed that the steps she had taken were correct but that she should have also checked the “Ltd” Company and sought the email address. The outcome was to issue the Complainant with a verbal warning to remain for one year..
The Complainant appealed the decision and she attended a meeting on 19th January 2017 and the outcome was to uphold the disciplinary sanction. She referred her dispute to the WRC and is requesting a recommendation that the verbal warning be withdrawn.
SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S POSITION.
The Respondent is the number one job site worldwide and gives jobseekers free access to millions of jobs from company websites and job boards. The Complainant’s function was to support the Finance Team in credit, risk and billing while ensuring the Respondent is paid for the services provided. Prior to approving a new client the Complainant was required to undertake a credit check and set appropriate account terms
The Respondent became aware on 12th December 2016 that the Complainant had approved a named company on 6th September 2016 despite the company having a very poor credit rating. The Complainant had been provided with a contract of employment including the Disciplinary Procedures of the Company. The Team Leader spoke to the Complainant on 13th December 2016 to explain there may be a problem with the “client”. She was invited to a formal disciplinary meeting on 4th January 2017 in relation to her failure to follow agreed process and practice when approving credit. At this meeting the Complainant advised she had done a check on a different named company which did not include “Ltd”. The outcome was to impose a formal verbal warning to remain for a 12 month period.
The Complainant appealed this sanction which was held on 31st January 2017 conducted by other senior members of the Respondent and the Complainant was informed of the outcome at a meeting on 3rd February 2017 which was to uphold the sanction.
FINDINGS AND CONLUSIONS.
On the basis of the evidence from both Parties at the Hearing I find that the Respondent conducted the investigation, disciplinary and appeals Hearings in accordance with fair procedure as set out at S.I. 146/2000 – Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000. I could find no basis to recommend that the verbal warning be withdrawn. I also note that the Complainant tendered her resignation from the Respondent Company on 31st July 2017
RECOMMENDATION.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. On the basis of my findings above I do not find there are any mitigating circumstances to recommend in favour of the Complainant that the verbal warning be withdrawn.
Dated: 5th December 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Key Words:
Disciplinary Sanction – no reason advanced to overturn the sanction |