Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Airport Authority

Representatives

Joseph Ateb Siptu

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002922

29/07/2024

This dispute concerns disciplinary sanctions imposed on the Worker following incidents that occurred while he was employed as an Airport Search Unit Supervisor with the Employer. The sanctions included a demotion from his Supervisory role to that of Airport Search Unit Officer and a final written warning, the latter of which has now expired.

The Worker began his employment with the Employer in mid-2018 as an Airport Search Unit Officer, initially placed on a probationary period. His role involved duties within the Airport Search Unit, including screening and conducting security checks on passengers. Following the successful completion of probation, he was confirmed as a permanent staff member and worked full-time on a staggered schedule, earning a regular net fortnightly wage.

In 2021, the Worker applied for and was appointed to a supervisory position following the Employer’s selection process. However, in September 2023, during his shift, he was informed by management that allegations had been made against him by colleagues. On the same day, he was suspended pending investigation, with formal notification of the allegations provided.

An investigation meeting was arranged shortly after, which the Worker attended. Following this, the matter was escalated to a disciplinary hearing where the Worker again participated. The disciplinary panel subsequently decided to demote the Worker from his supervisory role and issue a final written warning.

The Worker appealed the sanctions on the grounds that they were excessively harsh and that his previously good employment record had not been given due consideration. Despite attending the appeal meeting, the original sanctions were upheld.

The Worker accepted at the WRC hearing that the final written warning had expired and only sought reinstated to his supervisory role, as well as restitution for the financial loss and emotional distress caused by this situation.

Introduction

The Worker began employment with the Employer, the Airport Authority, on 7 June 2018 in the position of Airport Search Unit Officer (ASUO). The Airport Search Unit (ASU) plays a critical role in airport security operations, ensuring the safe and efficient screening of passengers and baggage using X-ray technology in accordance with European Union and national aviation security regulations.

On 4 July 2021, the Worker was promoted to Airport Search Unit Supervisor. This supervisory position involves overseeing frontline screening procedures and ensuring regulatory compliance, staff performance, and adherence to safety and conduct standards. ASU Supervisors are required to manage operations according to guidelines set by the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA), the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The role is safety-critical and governed by a collective agreement negotiated with a recognised trade union.

Disciplinary Action and Allegations of Misconduct

On 7 November 2023, the Worker was demoted from ASU Supervisor to ASU Officer and issued with a final written warning valid for 18 months. These actions followed a disciplinary investigation into two incidents classified by the Employer as gross misconduct. The incidents occurred on 3 and 4 September 2023 and involved the Worker kissing a colleague during active operational duties — once while the colleague was operating an X-ray machine and once in a premium services area while the Worker was acting in a supervisory capacity.

At the time of these incidents, the Worker was employed full-time on a 40-hour contract and earning an annual salary of €46,154. The Employer found that the Worker’s conduct breached the Dignity and Respect at Work Policy, the Code of Conduct, and protocols governing safety-critical operations.

Investigation and Admissions

On 5 September 2023, the Worker was suspended on full pay pending an investigation into the incidents. Statements were obtained from two ASU Officers who witnessed the first incident and from a Security Duty Manager who reviewed CCTV footage of the second incident. The colleague involved, an ASU Officer, confirmed that the incidents occurred and acknowledged that she was operating an X-ray machine at the time.

The Worker attended an investigation meeting on 6 October 2023, where he admitted to both incidents and acknowledged that the behaviour did not meet professional standards. He expressed remorse and accepted that his actions represented a lapse in judgment. He declined several opportunities to review the available CCTV footage.

On 17 October 2023, the investigating Security Duty Manager concluded that the allegations were substantiated. This was based on the Worker’s admissions and corroborating witness evidence. A disciplinary hearing was held on 24 October 2023, where the Worker was advised again of the seriousness of the allegations. The Disciplinary Officer reviewed all documentation, training records, and CCTV footage. The Worker and his representative confirmed that he would not review the footage and maintained his admissions.

Disciplinary Outcome

On 7 November 2023, the Employer issued the disciplinary outcome. The Worker was demoted to ASU Officer and given a final written warning to remain on his record for 18 months. The Employer stated that the decision reflected the safety-critical nature of the breaches, the Worker’s leadership responsibilities, and the need to preserve the integrity of security operations.

The Disciplinary Officer highlighted that supervisors are held to the highest standards of conduct and that the behaviour in question had the potential to compromise both safety and the Employer’s reputation.

Appeal Process

The Worker appealed the disciplinary decision on 13 November 2023, citing the severity of the sanction and procedural delays. The appeal hearing, delayed due to the Worker being on leave, was eventually held on 24 April 2024. On 17 June 2024, the Appeal Officer upheld the original decision. He confirmed that the sanctions were consistent with those issued in comparable cases and found no procedural errors significant enough to overturn the outcome.

Employer’s Position

The Employer stated that the disciplinary process was fair, transparent, and consistent with internal policy. It asserted that the demotion and final written warning were proportionate responses to the misconduct. The Worker had admitted to the breaches, understood the relevant rules and standards, and failed to uphold the responsibilities associated with a supervisory role in a safety-critical environment.

Although dismissal was an available option under gross misconduct provisions, the Employer opted for a combination of lesser sanctions to allow the Worker to remain in employment while still holding him accountable.

The Employer also confirmed that the ASU Officer involved in the incidents was subject to a separate disciplinary process and received a final written warning. Demotion was not applicable in that case, as no lower position exists within the Airport Search Unit.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

It is clear from the submissions presented that both the supervisory role and the position to which the Worker was demoted carry significant safety-critical responsibilities. The Employer placed particular emphasis on the safety implications of the Worker’s conduct, which the Worker admitted to and for which he expressed genuine remorse. However, this begs the question as to why, given the serious safety concerns cited, the Employer did not a transfer him to a less safety-sensitive role, as expressly permitted under its own disciplinary procedures.

The decision not to explore a departmental transfer as an alternative to demotion calls into question the true extent of the safety concerns. If the supervisor role was indeed so critical from a safety perspective, one would reasonably expect that the Worker would have been reassigned to a role with materially lower safety responsibilities rather than simply demoed to another safety-critical post. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the Employer's rationale and suggests a lack of proportionality in the disciplinary action taken.

Furthermore, I am satisfied that the final written warning issued to the Worker served a corrective purpose, consistent with the intended function of such warnings. The fact that this warning remained on the Worker’s file for 18 months supports the view that this sanction, in and of itself, was proportionate.

In light of the Worker’s unblemished prior record, his acceptance of responsibility, and the Employer’s failure to consider a less punitive and reasonable alternative, I find that the additional sanction of demotion was excessive. For these reasons, I recommend that the demotion be rescinded and that the Worker be reinstated to his previous supervisory position, with full restoration of duties and remuneration, to take effect within one week of receipt of this recommendation.