ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010374
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | General Operative | Manufacturing Company |
Representatives | Martin Corbett SIPTU Denis Norris Ray Humphreys | Mark Hearne Pat Beardmore Anne Marie Cosgrave |
Complaint:
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-00013788-001 | 06/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance withSection 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant seeks the withdrawal of a verbal warning, which was given after imperfections or “shives” were found on boards following his shift. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant is an employee of the Respondent since 1985. He is a loyal, diligent and hardworking employee who never received a verbal or written warning in his thirty three years service. In May 2017 he received an oral warning, which it is contended should never have been issued to him. It is argued that due to many changes in work practices it is not possible for the Complainant to monitor quality to the level now required by the Respondent. In 2001/2002 a restructuring agreement was reached and as a result the Respondent did away with the sander grader position and introduced 99.9% quality. It is submitted that this target is unrealistic and not reasonable. It is argued that the Complainant was penalised for doing his job. It is argued that the shives on the board were severely difficult to see and that the Complainant had many problems to deal with on the night, including having to manually feed into the sander. It is argued that the imposition of the warning is grossly unfair and should be retracted and removed from the Complainant’s file. There were other people in the chain of production who had responsibility for the quality of the product, including a line operator and supervisor. It is submitted that they did not receive a warning. The Complainant appealed the decision to issue him with a verbal warning, but his appeal was turned down. This came as a shock to the Complainant who has executed his duties to the best of his ability and has carried out his duties to the best of his abilities at all times. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
“Shives” which can appear on board surfaces can appear as a defect and will look similar to matchsticks on the surface. This is a serious issue which can lead to remake of the board. On the night in question the sanding the Complainant was engaged in was not in compliance with quality standards. As Sander Operator the Complainant was responsible for ensuring the appropriate number of quality checks were carried out. After the shift changeover at 8.am the following day, the next shift Sander Operator came on duty and the shives were noticed straight away. The previous night 89m3 of board with shives defect had been sanded and cut into units, which resulted in the remake of all this board. The Company, in deciding the level of warning, took into account the Complainant’s good record and constructive engagement with the investigation. The warning was justified, the investigation carried out in accordance with agreed procedures and the appeal was also conducted with due process. The sanction for this type of incident would normally be a written warning, but a verbal warning was issued, the lowest form of sanction, to acknowledge the Complainant’s commitment and honesty. |
Recommendation:
It is common case that the Complainant is a diligent and honest employee who performs his tasks to the best of his abilities. I note the evidence of the Complainant and that of his colleagues of the changes in the job and the potential effects these have on their productivity, health and safety and product quality. However, these are issues which would be more appropriately addressed between Management and Union. The issue which gave rise to the current dispute/complaint before me has been fully investigated, and appealed internally. I note the form of sanction is the lowest which can be given, and I note that the other personnel in the situation appear to also have been subject to some sanction. The verbal warning expired in October 2017 and should be long removed from the Complainant’s file. I recommend that Management write to the Complainant confirming to him that the verbal warning has been removed from his file and will not be held against him in the future. |
Dated: 14th June 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham