Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

IT Supervisor

Care Services

Representatives

Eileen Smith Fórsa Trade Union

 Tevlin Clarke HR Consulting

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 - 00005245

30/09/2025

The referral and dispute relate to what the worker perceives to be an inconsistent and irregular disciplinary process where the worker received a verbal written warning and then was placed on performance improvement programme (PIP). That programme should have begun prior to the verbal written warning issuing.

The Respondent stated that they followed proper procedure and had given the worker an opportunity to improve prior to issuing the verbal warning. The PIP followed on from the verbal stage so that the worker had a clear understanding of what he needed to do to improve. The referral is moot as the verbal warning lasts only 6 months, and the time has expired, and the warning has been removed from the file.

The worker maintains that the process never had regard to his challenging personal circumstances after returning to work from a period of certified leave. The informal process put in place was never allowed to properly run its course and the verbal warning was punitive and unwarranted. The PIP was put in place after the verbal waring issued to save face, and the process was flawed and prejudiced.

Essentially the complaint concerns a verbal warning issued on the 30 May 2025. The complainant takes issue with such a warning and is seeking to have the warning overturned. It should be noted that the verbal warning expired on the 30 November 2025 and in accordance with the disciplinary procedure the warning has been removed from the complainant’s personnel file. CRC management are satisfied that it acted in accordance with the CRC’s disciplinary procedure. There were concerns with the complainant’s performance. He was advised under informal counselling of these concerns and both he and his line manager agreed on changes needed. The performance did not improve to a suitable level, and the line manager invoked the formal disciplinary procedure. Following a disciplinary hearing under stage 1 a verbal warning issued. The complainant as is his right lodged an appeal. The appeal was heard by another member of the management team, and the warning was upheld. The stages of the disciplinary procedure were followed correctly, and the complainant was provided with every opportunity to defend his position.

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

In summary the worker believes that the cart was put before the horse, and a PIP should have been put in place before a verbal warning issued.

The disciplinary policy states:

8.2.1.1 At the informal counselling stage: The manager will meet with the employee on a one-to-one basis. There is no requirement or entitlement to have a work colleague or union representative present at an informal counselling meeting. Representation is an entitlement under the formal stages of the disciplinary process. The employee shall be given precise details of the specific aspects of his or her attendance, work or conduct/behaviour that require improvement. The employee shall be given an opportunity to respond to complaints and careful consideration shall be given to any explanations given' Having made the employee aware of deficiencies in their attendance, work or conduct, the Supervisor/manager in consultation with the employee, shall identify appropriate measures that can be taken to assist the employee and formulate an action plan, which may include a Performance Improvement Plan, for achieving the required improvements within an agreed timeframe. A summary or file note of the counselling interview and any follow up action agreed shall be documented and signed by both parties.

The Company stated that they did in fact follow the process and the fact that the PIP was put in place after the verbal warning ignores the informal counselling and improvement process put in place before the formal process was initiated.  A PIP is not confined to the informal stage.

The dispute to some extent is moot as the verbal warning no longer exists and has been removed from the personnel file.

The process caused serious upset to the worker and arising from this and what is seen to be an inconsistent process the worker has brought this complaint.

A referral to the Commission attempts to resolve the matter between the parties. The Company have the right to manage performance and allowing for the fact that this process was about the first stage of the disciplinary process and the sanction has been removed from the file, no benefit arises by stating that the warning should never have issued.

The PIP is not limited to any one stage of the process, and the policy is not rigid about when it should be put in place. The nature of a contract of employment means that reviews will take place and a worker’s performance will be rated. The purpose of that process is to ensure that the worker meets the goals that have been set for him. As that now has occurred in this case nothing is served by reviewing the matter further. It would not be useful to state that a PIP must occur before a verbal warning issues, as what is required is informal counselling in the first instance and that is what occurred here.

In this case as the matter is largely moot, the process I determine was substantially fair and find that the employer acted reasonably. I find against the worker.

Moot-Verbal Warning-