FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : B & Q - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal of Sanctions.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the worker's claim of unfair treatment. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 27 July 2017, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Employer declined to attend the hearing.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker did not breach the company vehicle movement policy.
2. He never put the safety of either colleagues or visitors to the warehouse at risk.
3. The Company should remove the sanctions given to the Worker and return him to the position of Warehouse supervisor.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing of the Court and consequently the Court was deprived of any submission setting out the views of the employer.
The Court has given very careful consideration to the submission of the Trade Union and the matters set out therein. The Court notes that the issues giving rise to the disciplinary penalty imposed on the Claimant arose as matters of Health and Safety in the workplace. Having regard to the fact that it is for the employer to discharge their duty under relevant Health and Safety legislation and regulation the Court is reluctant to formulate a recommendation which infringes thereon.
The Court notes that the penalty imposed on the Claimant was severe and also that there is no limit in time placed upon the sanction. The Court considers that such a penalty is disproportionate and unreasonable in the uncontested account of the circumstances outlined to the Court.
In all of the circumstances therefore the Court recommends as follows:
1. The final written warning imposed on the Claimant should expire on 31stDecember 2017 and thereafter be removed from the Claimant’s file.2. That the Claimant should be restored to his previous grade level in the organisation within the organisation with effect from 31stMarch 2018.
3. That the Claimant should be returned to a position in the warehouse with effect from 1stApril 2018.
4. That, if restoration to the warehouse is decided not to be possible for Health and Safety reasons, the Claimant should be compensated appropriately for the loss of earnings which will result from that circumstance.
5. That, if the Claimant is not restored to the warehouse and a corresponding grade cannot be afforded to the Claimant outside of the warehouse, he should be afforded a grade outside the warehouse as close as possible to his previous grade, and compensated appropriately for the loss of earnings he will suffer thereafter.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
28 November 2017______________________
MNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.