Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

SIPTU

Internal HR

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 - 00003551

12/12/2024

The Worker is employed as an Attendant Grade Security Officer with the Employer. He stated that he was subject to a disciplinary process and sanctioned for poor timekeeping. Subsequently, the Employer withheld a pay increment due on 3 October 2023. This withholding had not been identified earlier as a possible consequence. He stated that this amounts to a second sanction for the same issue which he asserts is unfair.

The Worker is employed as an Attendant Grade Security Officer with the Employer. He stated that he was subject to a disciplinary process and sanctioned for poor timekeeping. Subsequently, the Employer withheld a pay increment due on 3 October 2023. This withholding had not been identified earlier as a possible consequence. He alleged this amounts to a second sanction for the same issue and highlighted that the increment would have moved him from point 7 to point 9, increasing his weekly pay by €78.44. Policy in the Employer’s applicable Circular requires incremental certificates to be circulated at least a month before the due date, but in this case the document was completed on 1 November 2023 and the Worker was informed of the withholding on 7 November 2023, over a month late.

It was also highlighted that Section 8 of the same Circular specifies that an incremental assessment must be carried out by someone at least of Higher Executive Officer rank. Instead, the Worker’s Line Manager conducted the assessment and recommended withholding the increment. There was a prior interpersonal issue between them, relating to the Worker raising concerns over the Line Manager’s social media content. The Worker contended that the Line Manager lacked objectivity and that senior management had limited direct knowledge of the Worker’s performance, relying instead on the Line Manager’s opinion.

Section 11 of the Circular warns against placing undue emphasis on punctuality when assessing increments, encouraging a balanced view of strengths and weaknesses. However, the assessment document made three distinct references to timekeeping, with no mention of strengths or broader performance aspects.

The Worker also highlighted that he had disclosed family issues affecting punctuality, but no support was offered by the Employer. He maintained that using timekeeping to justify withholding the increment was unreasonable, especially since deductions for lateness had already been applied in a lump sum—despite the Worker’s request for staggered payments—at the insistence of the Line Manager.

Additional reasons cited by the Employer included:

• Mobile phone use: Management alleged excessive use without specific incidents or evidence. The relevant circular permits momentary use to check the time. No proof was given that the Worker exceeded this limit. A Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) on phone use was mentioned, but SIPTU had no record of such a plan being agreed.
• Failure to clock in: The Line Manager alleged five occasions (but listed only four). The Worker reported technical issues with the system, but these were not investigated.
• Absence of swipe card: The Worker explained such instances and followed procedure by obtaining temporary passes, which occasionally delayed shift start times and were then raised under timekeeping.

SIPTU stated that the Employer’s justifications are weak, disproportionate, and unrelated to increment eligibility. The combination of prior disciplinary sanction, additional financial loss of nearly €1,000, lack of procedural fairness, and unresolved interpersonal tensions indicates the Employer did not apply its policies fairly or consistently.

The Worker has been employed as an Attendant Grade Security Staff since 3 October 2017, responsible for front-of-house security, incident reporting, investigations, implementing the Security and Safety Management Plan, providing visitor information, and complying with all policies.

Under the applicable Circular and the Employer’s Increment Procedure, annual salary increments are granted only for satisfactory service, assessed through an Increment Approval Form completed by the line manager and reviewed by senior management.

For the review period 3 October 2022 to 2 October 2023, the Worker’s supervisor recorded 13 lateness incidents (after correction from 15), twelve failures to clock in, and mobile phone use in breach of SOP 10, with refusal to participate in an improvement plan on this issue. These constituted breaches of SOP 10 (Mobile Phone Use), SOP 01 (Working Hours), SOP 61 (Lateness), and SOP 17 (Room Procedures / General Security). The Worker did not dispute the breaches, only the lateness count.

The supervisor recommended withholding the increment, and the Director of Corporate Services, Head of HR and Employee Relations, and Head of Operations approved this, notifying the Worker in writing with supporting documents.

The Worker appealed on 13 December 2023, and a hearing on 19 April 2024, attended with a union representative, confirmed that correct procedures had been followed. He acknowledged punctuality issues and admitted sometimes failing to clock in due to forgetting his swipe card. The appeals officer upheld the decision.

Management noted repeated interventions since 2018, including policy acknowledgment at onboarding, multiple lateness review meetings, written warnings, coaching, improvement plans, reminders to bring his swipe card, and a formal investigation in 2023. Despite these measures, the Worker continued to breach clear standards, leading the Employer to conclude the increment was not earned.

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

I note firstly that the increment due on 3 October 2023 was withheld following the formal assessment process outlined in the applicable Circular and the Employer’s Increment Procedure, which require increments to be granted only where service is satisfactory. The assessment considered performance, punctuality, attendance, and compliance with policies. The Worker’s supervisor documented repeated lateness (13 instances), failures to clock in (12 occasions), breaches of the relevant circular regarding mobile phone use, and refusal to engage with a corrective improvement plan. Senior managers reviewed and approved the assessment, ensuring proper procedural oversight.

The Worker argues that withholding the increment amounts to a “double penalty” for lateness already sanctioned. However, under the Employer’s policy, an increment is not a guaranteed entitlement — it is an assessment of whether service during the review period meets the required standard for pay progression. Withholding it reflects that performance during the relevant year was unsatisfactory. In this case, the lateness, attendance breaches, and procedural non-compliance were ongoing during the review period and persisted despite earlier interventions.

The Employer provided repeated opportunities to improve — including coaching, review meetings, and reminders — but breaches continued. Withholding the increment was proportionate, consistent with policy, and based on documented service deficiencies during the period under review.

While the Worker experienced financial loss and interpersonal tension with his Line Manager, the process followed by the Employer adhered to the requirements of the applicable Circular, including documented assessments, senior review, and the right to appeal, which was fully exercised.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that the withholding of the pay increment was a proportionate and policy-compliant measure reflecting ongoing unsatisfactory performance. The Worker should therefore consider the matter closed.