ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019390
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Material Mover | A Manufacturer |
Representatives | SIPTU | IBEC |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00025218-001 | 23/01/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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.
Background:
The Worker said that he has exhausted the internal procedures in his attempt to overturn a decision by management to sanction him following his involvement in an accident at work. The Employer said that he was served with a warning following an accident at work and after an investigation. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker is a general operative and employed by the Employer since January 2002. He is involved in the transportation of materials and finished products between sections of the Employer’s manufacturing plant. He said that in August 2018 he was working in “Area 8”, an area within the plant that he was unfamiliar with and while using an electric pallet truck hoist he by accident struck the sprinkling system and caused damage to the system. An investigation followed and he gave his side of the story to his team leader and the Health and Safety Officer, which in turn reported it to the shift manager. On 21 September 2018 he was issued with a verbal warning over the incident citing “carelessness in damaging company property”. The warning was to remain active for four months from 13 August 2018. The Worker appealed the sanction under the Company’s grievance procedure on eight grounds in particular centred around the lack of adequate or visible warning signs of possible risk in the area in question; the lack of communication in relation to the possibilities of dangers in the area including exposed pipework; the fact that the issuing of the warning was delivered by the Health and Safety Officer and not HR; the fact that employees in similar circumstances would fail to report accidents in the future for fear of disciplinary sanction. The Worker is seeking to have the warning expunged from his record. He is seeking an assurance that adequate steps will be put in place to eliminate risk in the area of concern within the plant and that the Employer will assure that people involved in accidents will not be involved in disciplinary investigations as a result of reporting an accident. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer employs 1400 people in its manufacturing plant. The Worker was employed as a material mover for over 10 years and is fully trained on the use of the motorised equipment. The Worker was involved in an incident on 13 August 2018 where he was removing pallets of trays from an area and he struck and damaged a sprinkler system. A meeting was held to determine what happened. It was decided that he should be issued with a Verbal Warning. The Employer said that it was not the first time that Employee was spoken to on in relation to incidents of this nature. The Employer said that the Worker appealed the warning. However, the warning was considered merited. That health and safety of all employees is of paramount importance and the Worker’s carelessness could have jeopardised the safety of him as well as his fellow workers. They are seeking to have the warning upheld and the complaint rejected. |
Conclusions and Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. There is no dispute that the incident happened, and the Worker accidentally damaged the sprinkler system. The Worker blames the Employer’s lack of adequate warnings and the Employer cites carelessness on behalf of the Worker. Following the investigation, the Employer decides to sanction the Worker with a Verbal Warning to remain on his file for four months expiring on 13 December 2018. The Worker did not accept the Warning and appealed it internally and then to the WRC for determination. He wants the warning expunged from him file. Recommendation I am satisfied that the Employer is within its rights to investigate the matter following the incident and having done so found that the Worker was responsible for damage to the Employer’s equipment. Notwithstanding the claims by the Worker, that there should have been better signage and communication about the Area where the incident occurred, it’s clear that any employee operating machinery in a confined area should be overly cautious in particular an area s/he is unfamiliar with. It is clear the matter was investigated properly by the Employer and there can be no criticism proclaimed there. Following the investigation, the Employer has deemed that a sanction is merited, - a verbal warning- and it is to the lower end of the scale of disciplinary options open to it. I believe that the verbal warning is within the rights of the Employer and it appears proportionate and appropriate. I note that the warning was to remain “active” on the Workers file for 4 months – until 13th December 2018. At the time of hearing the dispute, that period had well lapsed. It could be considered that the point is moot since the time has passed and the warning was no longer active. However, the Employee wished the warning it to be “expunged” from his record so that it cannot be used against him in the future. Like it had never existed. I recommend that the Worker accepts that he received a written warning for his part of the accident and the verbal warning was now lapsed and cannot be used in a disciplinary action against him because the 4-month time limit has lapsed. I recommend that the Employer review the signage at Area 8, where the incident happened in the interest of health and safety and determine whether it requires to be improved or not. I recommend that the Worker accepts that the Employer and management has a responsibility to manage its business in the best interests of all its employees and to use the disciplinary process when accidents occur. |
Dated: 6th March 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Acts - accident - disciplinary action - verbal warning |