ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010432
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Warehouse Operative | A Logistics Company |
Dispute:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00013797-001 | 06/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/05/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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.
Background:
The worker is employed by the Employer as a Warehouse Operative (Order Picker) since 2006. The current dispute relates to a final written warning which was issued to the worker in August 2017. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker is seeking to have the final written warning removed from his personal file as he contends that it was issued to him unfairly and at variance with Company procedures. The warning was issued to the worker as a result of a corrective procedure concerning his hourly/daily picking rate and his attitude towards management during that process. The worker is dissatisfied with the required number of orders that he is required to pick each day. The worker does not believe that the orders for picking are distributed automatically and at random. He contends that the system is unfair and results in some workers achieving their picking targets while others do not meet the targets due to the preferential distribution of orders for picking. The worker contends that his picking rate is lower than acceptable as a result. The worker contends that he is doing his best and that he wants to be left alone to do his job without being harassed by the employer The worker confirmed that he received a verbal warning in March 2017 to remain on file for 6 months and subsequently received a final written warning on 30th August 2017 to remain on file for 12 months. The worker stated that the employer issued him with a final written warning instead of following the sequence of disciplinary sanctions provided for in the employee handbook. The worker is seeking to have the warning removed from his personnel file. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer’s position is that the worker was issued with a verbal warning by letter dated 3rd April 2017 for a picking performance that was well below the expected standard. The employer sated that the required number was 200 cases per hour yet on a number of occasions the worker was well below this level. The employer stated that the worker was offered additional training and support yet refused. The employer refutes the worker’s contention that he did not receive “good” or “fair” picks as it contends the pick system is automatic. The employer stated that the worker was subsequently subject to a corrective procedure in August 2017 on the basis that his pick rate remained well below the required level and on the basis of his absence levels and poor work ethic. The employer stated that during the process, the worker said that it was not his fault that his pick rate was below the required standard and that he would continue in the same way as before and would not be “flying around the place trying to meet targets”. The employer also stated that the worker made no comment in relation to his absence levels and in relation to his work ethic stated that “he wouldn’t be enthusiastic and going around with a smile on his face.” The employer stated that the worker was argumentative throughout the process and showed no respect towards management. The employer confirmed that having considered all of the evidence it decided that issuing the worker with a final written warning was appropriate. The employer confirmed that the worker appealed the final written warning on the basis that it had been issued at variance with the employee handbook, that there was an unfair selection of orders for picking resulting in his low picking rate and also in relation to issues concerning breaches of manual handling/health and safety. In its appeal decision, the employer upheld the final written warning stating that the employee handbook provides that in certain circumstances “depending on the seriousness of any given situation, management will decide on the appropriate stage in the corrective procedure.” In relation to the unfair pick rate, the employer reiterated its position that “picks” are allocated at random. The employer also stated that the worker should follow the correct manual handling procedures for his own safety. The employer contends that it acted fairly and in line with its policies and procedures in relation to the issuing of the final written warning. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In relation to this dispute I find as follows: The worker has long service with the employer yet continually failed to reach the required picking targets. The employer offered its support and further training to the worker yet the worker refused on the basis that he felt it was the unfair allocation of the orders for picking and the continuous increases in the hourly/daily pick rates that were causing him difficulties in reaching his targets. The worker was subject to a corrective procedure which resulted in a verbal warning initially and a second corrective procedure which resulted in a final written warning issuing with effect from 30th August 2017 for a period of 12 months. I find that the employer acted in line with the provisions of the employee handbook in considering the seriousness of the situation prior to deciding to issue the worker with a final written warning. In circumstances where the worker continually missed the required target for picking, refused further training and support, had high levels of absence, and was uncooperative throughout the corrective procedure process in August 2017, I find that it was reasonable of the employer to issue the worker with a final written warning. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having considered the written and verbal submissions of both parties to this dispute, I find that the final written warning was issued fairly and I recommend that it remain on file until its expiry on 30th August 2018. |
Dated: 1.8.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Final written warning |