Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tommy  McNamee

Saolta University Health Care Group

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Gordon Curley O'Gorman Cunningham & Co., Solicitors

Mr. Paul Hume, Regional HR Director

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00065574-001

23/08/2024

The claimant  has been employed  as a Multi Task Attendant  with the respondent since the 1st.March 2005.

The claimant submitted the respondent was in breach of the Act for imposing a sanction of withholding an increment from him in response to allegations of unauthorized leave. It was submitted that the decision to sanction him was taken following a flawed disciplinary process – this involved a meeting under stage IV of the respondent’s disciplinary process wherein it was asserted that there were significant issues regarding the claimant’s attendance , performance and absences from work. It was submitted that the respondent failed to give him due notice of the specific allegations being made against him , in advance of the meeting. It was asserted that the employer had failed to properly  enquire into the matter of approval for his leave and that  the claimant  was denied an opportunity to cross examine witnesses involved in the approval process. The claimant submitted that issues were decided by the respondent in advance of the Stage IV meeting  and it was submitted that the claimant was unaware of the seriousness of the meeting or that the range of potential outcomes could include dismissal . It was submitted that the respondent had failed to observe the provisions of the  escalating disciplinary process set out in the respondent’s disciplinary procedure. It was submitted that the claimant was denied fair procedures and was not afforded the right to be heard. The claimant was adamant that the disputed leave had been sanctioned by his line manager and gave a detailed account of his recollection of  his application for leave – which he insisted was appropriately approved by his line manager.

The respondent submitted that the claimant was well aware of the performance and attendance issues at work which It was submitted  led to escalation to stage IV of the respondent’s disciplinary procedure  .The respondent’s representative set out a chronology of the disciplinary process followed by the respondent and the outcome of same. It was submitted that there was no jurisdiction to hear the complaint in circumstances where the complaint was lodged prior to any deduction being made and in circumstances where the reduced rate of pay constituted “Wages Properly Payable”.

I have no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint.