Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A General Operative

A manufacturer

Representatives

SIPTU

IBEC

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 - 00004362

26/05/2025

The Worker is a general operative. He is employed by the Employer which is a manufacturing company for the last 29 years. He is a full-time employee and his annual salary is approx. €33,000.

The Worker is a general operator and has worked for the Employer for almost 29 years.

The Worker was issued with a written warning on 21 st March 2025

The Employer uses agency workers on a regular basis and one such worker submitted a grievance following an interaction he had with the Worker on 29th October 2024. This pertained to remarks the Worker made pertaining to his workstation. The agency worker understood the remarks were directed at him. The agency worker contacted his line manager KE in the first instance and then his employer.

It is submitted that the investigation was conducted by KE who in his capacity as line manager, had previous knowledge the agency worker had issues with the Worker, therefore, he should have recused himself from the investigation.

The grounds of appeal of the sanction, outlined at a meeting with the Employers HR EL, on 1 st May 2025, included:-

KE also had sight of both the complaint submitted to the agency in the form of meeting minutes and the complaint submitted to the Employer and it is submitted that they influenced his decision to uphold the grievances.

The Employer’s Grievance Procedure specifies a five (5) day reference period limit when submitting a grievance. However, the grievances investigated by KE covered a four-month period and again, it is submitted that this influenced his decision unfairly.

KE did not take a record of the Worker’s version of events from 29th October 2024 for consideration and to put to the agency worker who had raised a grievance, for response. A fundamental part of any investigation.

It is the Worker’s position that KE stated his investigation findings could be appealed to a panel of 5/6 managers. The Worker believes this was stated in order to intimidate him and to dissuade him from appealing.

As line manager to both parties, it is submitted that KE should have resolved the issues of 29th October 2024 by bringing both to the office and sought to mediate the misunderstanding.

The Worker believes there were deliberately delays in all stages of the process, in particular the disciplinary stage. A disciplinary meeting was held on 19th December 2024 and the written warning was not issued until 21 st March 2025. The Worker submits that the decision could have been issued the first week of January, in the week commencing 6th January or between 24th February and 10th March 2025.

It is submitted that the Worker was unclear throughout about the stages in the process as the Employer does not have policies complying with SI 146 of 2000.

It is submitted that KE also went beyond the standard remit of an investigator to establish facts, by stating "your behaviour around the grievance warrants disciplinary action" in his report. (Copy of report submitted).

It is further submitted that KE confirms he is again going outside his remit as investigator by stating he will be reporting additional witness comments to HR.

The appeal officer EL provided interview documents and the Worker responded as follows:

Re: RD: ‘The Worker is adamant in his recollection and PR confirms KE said 5/6 manager panel.’

Re: KE: Grievances: ‘The title of the [Agency name redacted] grievance given to the Worker is [Agency Worker’s name] Grievance with the Worker [company name redacted]’. The Worker queries how KE can deny it is a grievance. He further queries why the document entitled 'minutes of a meeting with a contractor' was included in the process, if not for consideration.

The Worker further re-iterates his view that KE had prior knowledge of issues between the parties; and further that the grievance raised was outside the five (5) day period set out. It is therefore submitted that KE should have been aware that there was only one incident to be investigated in his remit. However, due to the fact that KE had read the complaint to the agency, he questioned the witnesses in relation to that grievance, and goes so far as to include a paragraph in his report stating he has referred some of the issues to HR.

It is submitted that the Worker’s version is not recorded, and that its inclusion is a basic requirement of any investigation process.

It is further submitted that no attempt was made to resolve the matter informally, as per the company’s policy.

It is submitted that in relation to the appeal process, that PR confirms the Worker’s account re: 5/6 managers being mentioned by KE.

It is submitted that the disciplinary process was not conducted in a timely manner.

The Worker submits that while he understands it is not the role of an appeal officer to reinvestigate, the process did not include the Worker’s version of events, and if recorded, should then have been put to the agency worker making the complaint, for his comments.

EL's decision to uphold the original sanction is dated 15th May 2025.

It is submitted that the obligation on employers to carry out an investigation and disciplinary process that follows the principles of fair procedures and natural justice is well defined. Natural justice comprises two key rules.

1.      Nemo iudex in causa sua - It is submitted that one of the most important rules of natural justice that no one should act as a judge in a case in which they have a personal or bias interest. As such anyone conducting a review, investigation, hearing or appeal must be sufficiently removed from it if there is any question as to their independence. In the instant case, the investigator was line manager to both parties and was aware the agency worker who made the complaint had issues with the Worker prior to the incident of 29th October 2024 and on this basis should have recused himself.

2.      Audi alteram partem – the other side must be heard. It is submitted that in this case, the investigator had no company policy to adhere to, and did not ensure to record the Worker’s account of what happened on 29th October 2024.

It is further submitted that in terms of proportionality, the extensive working history of the Worker should have been considered. It is submitted that the Worker has an unblemished history, and this was not taken into consideration.

The Worker refers to McMahon J. in Khan v Health Service Executive 2009 E.L.R. 178, with respect to the significance of fair procedures, and submits that the Worker was not afforded fair procedures in this case.

The Worker also refers to ADJ-00045306, highlighting that the Adjudicator noted in that case that ‘While the standard for workplace investigation is not perfection, it does go beyond merely populating template documents without any objective independent thought and consideration for the Complainant's version of events.’ It is submitted that, in this case, the Worker’s version of events is not even recorded.

The Worker submits that he is aware the warning has expired, however, is adamant it should not have been applied. The Worker is seeking a recommendation that confirms the processes engaged in by the Employer were markedly unfair; and further is seeking compensation for flawed procedures and lack of natural justice.

The Worker is appealing the imposition of a written warning issued to him by the Employer on 21st March 2025 and expired 22nd September 2025 in line with policy. The Worker alleges that a disciplinary sanction issued was unfair. The Employer denies this claim.

The Worker was issued with an appropriate sanction of a written warning which the Employer submits was fair and entirely appropriate.  

It is submitted that the disciplinary warning in which the Worker’s case refers to has now expired and as such, no longer exists on the Worker’s record. Therefore, it is the Employer’s position that the terms of a complaint referred under the Industrial relations Act, it is the Employer’s position that the matter is now outside of the Adjudicator’s hands, as the Employer submits this complaint no longer exists and has ceased to exist as and from 22nd September 2025.

On 30th October 2024, a grievance was raised against the Worker. The Employer investigated this grievance in line with the company procedures and afforded the Worker all the rights and entitlements under the rules of natural justice.

It is submitted that initially, the Woker refused to participate, however after explaining to the Worker it was his opportunity to comment, he engaged.

It is submitted that after a full and fair Investigation (Copy of Grievance Investigation submitted), the outcome was presented to the Worker and it was referred to the Disciplinary procedure (Copy of Outcome submitted).

On 26th November 2024, the Worker appealed the grievance outcome, outlining he was never given on opportunity to give his side of the incident which the grievance was based on. The appeal was reviewed and the outcome of his appeal was not upheld and the original grievance outcome was maintained (Copy of appeal of Grievance submitted).

It is submitted that he had the opportunity to further appeal this decision as per the company policy (Copy of policy submitted), however he did not.

The matter was then referred to Disciplinary as per the grievance outcome.

On 18th December 2024, the Worker was invited to a disciplinary meeting. The first meeting was held on 19th December 2024 (Copy of disciplinary invite and hearing submitted).

The Worker was out for a period of six (6) weeks at the start of 2025 and returned to work 26th February.

The Worker had planned annual leave from 10th - 14th of March. 

On 19th March 2025, the Worker was invited to an outcome meeting. He expressed his displeasure at the delay at the time of invitation. The meeting took place on 21st March 2025 and a written warning was issued to the Worker (Copy of Disciplinary Outcome submitted).

On 27th March 2025, the Worker appealed the decision of the Disciplinary to EL (Copy of Appeal of Disciplinary submitted).

The appeal meeting occurred on 1st May 2025. The outcome of the appeal was communicated to the Worker on 15th May 2025 and the appeal decision was to not uphold his appeal and as such, the written warning was maintained. (Copy of Appeal Outcome submitted).

The warning in question expired and was removed from the Worker’s record as per the Employer’s disciplinary procedure on 22nd September 2025.

It is the Employer’s position that a full and fair investigation took place in accordance with fair procedures. The Worker was informed of the allegations against him, was afforded the right to representation, was given the opportunity to state his case, was informed of the possible outcome of the disciplinary hearing and a sanction in line with company policy and was afforded the opportunity to appeal the disciplinary outcome which she subsequently did.    

It is submitted that the Employer has at all times, adhered fully to both the rules of natural justice and S.I. No. 146/2000 and the Employer’s Policy.  

It is submitted that the Employer’s position is that the matter has since resolved, as the written warning, the subject matter of this complaint no longer exists and has ceased to exist as and from 22nd September 2025, when the warning expired. 

The Employer would therefore ask that the Adjudication Officer recommend that the parties should accept that the matter was resolved as an Industrial Relations matter on the 22nd September 2025, when the impugned warning ceased to have existence. 

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

I conclude that there were procedural deficits in how the Employer conducted this investigation, in particular with respect to the parameters of the investigation the basis of which was unclear, and the failure to record and put the Worker’s version of events for comment to the person who raised the complaint.

I note that the written warning has since expired.

In light of the procedural deficits, I recommend that the warning be expunged from the Worker’s record, in full and final settlement of this matter.

I make no recommendation with respect to compensation.

Written warning; procedural deficits; expired; expunged.