ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008381
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Team Leader | Department Store |
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-00011115-001 | 03/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/10/2017
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 has been employed with the Respondent Company since November 2007. He has been appointed Team Leader in a permanent capacity since July 2017. He is paid €530.00 gross per week and he works 38 hours a week. The Complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission on 3rd May 2017 concerning the issuing of a final written warning.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT’S POSITION.
In November2016 the Complainant was called to an investigation meeting concerning the “misappropriation of the company discount facility”. The incident concerned the Complainant purchasing a phone for a former colleague and using his 10% staff discount to do so. Following the investigation the issue was referred to the disciplinary process. The Complainant attended a Disciplinary Meeting on 1st December 2016 and confirmed he had bought the phone but did so as he believed he could use his staff discount when purchasing for friends and family. The outcome was to issue the Complainant with a Final Written Warning to remain for a period of 12 months. The Complainant appealed this decision and he attended the Appeal Hearing on 4th December 2016. The outcome was to uphold the decision to issue a Formal Written Warning.
The Complainant argued that the sanction was disproportionate and severe as the Complainant has never been subjected to any other Disciplinary Sanction during the course of his employment.
SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S POSITION.
In October 2016 a customer came into a named store with a faulty phone but had no receipt. However on 14th November 2016 the customer forwarded the receipt which was a store staff discount receipt. The receipt was signed by the Complainant. This receipt was shown to the Complainant on 15th November 2017 but he stated he had no knowledge of it. The Store Manager informed him that there would be an investigation. This took place on 15th November 2016. The Complainant was informed of his right to be represented but declined this. The Complainant admitted he had purchased a phone for a friend using his discount card and admitted what he had done was wrong but stated that he had never done anything like that before. The outcome of the Investigation was that the Complainant had bought three other phones using his staff discount. His Training Records were reviewed in relation to staff discounts which found he had completed a course in May 2014. A second investigation meeting took place on 18th November 2016. He again declined representation. He again confirmed he had bought the phone for a friend. He had also signed a “Discount Declaration Form” in April 2015 which clearly indicated that he understood the staff discount policy.
A disciplinary Hearing took place on 1st December 2016 with a named Store Manager and the Complainant was accompanied by his Trade Union MANDATE. The results of the investigation were presented and the meeting was adjourned to enable the Respondent review all the information he had received. When the meeting reconvened the Complainant was issued with a final written warning and he was informed that account had been taken of his long service with the Company. The final written warning is due to expire on 1st December 2017. The Complainant appealed the decision which was heard on 4th January 2017 which upheld the decision.
The Respondent referenced the complaint form submitted by the Complainant in which he states tht because of the sanction he could not compete in any promotion competition. This is not factual as in fact the Complainant was successful in a promotion competition and was appointed Team Leader in July 2017 while the sanction remained in place.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
On the basis of the evidence and written submissions from both Partiers I find as follows =
- Both Parties confirmed that the Complainant had been afforded all due process in line with the internal procedures of the Company and S.I. 146/2000.
- Both Parties confirmed that the Complainant had completed a Staff Training course in May 2014 on the Staff Discount Policy and again both Parties confirmed that the Complainant had signed the “Discount Declaration Form” in April 2015 confirming that he understood the rules of the scheme which states “This benefit is for individual use and your immediate family only” and “Under no circumstances is the discount otherwise transferable”. Thus it is clear the Complainant understood the policy.
- Both Parties confirmed at the Hearing that the Complainant had been appointed in a permanent capacity to his current position of Team Leader while the sanction remains in operation and also that he had been paid the Christmas Bonus of €420.00 despite the sanction.
- The Respondent confirmed that misuse of the Staff Discount Policy could result in dismissal. However given his long service with the Company he was issued with a lesser sanction of a Final Written Warning which is due to expire on 1st December 2017.
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and on the basis of my findings above I can see no contributory factors that the Respondent acted in a disproportionate manner, accordingly I do not find in favour of the Complainant.
Dated: 1/12/17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Key Words:
Disciplinary Sanction – No contributory factors the Respondent acted in a disproportionate manner. |