ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00005575
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Sales Advisor | Retailer |
Representatives | Ken Reilly Mandate Trade Union | Jane Mellett IBEC |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00005575 | 05/11/2025 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 03/06/2026
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. The parties are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be conducted in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
Background:
The Worker commenced employment as a Sales Advisor on 21/09/1998. In 2025 the Worker received a Stage 1 verbal warning due to absence from work for 11 shifts. The Worker believes that she was not afforded fair procedures, including the right of appeal. The Employer submits that the Stage 1 verbal warning and procedures were in accordance with the relevant policies and procedures. The Employer also submits that the dispute is now moot given that the Stage 1 verbal warning expired in July 2025. |
Summary of Workers Case:
Following a period of absence due to work related stress the Worker was invited to an Absence Review Meeting (ARM) on 25/04/2025. The outcome of this meeting was that she was to receive a Stage 1 verbal warning which would remain in place for a period of three months. It was submitted on behalf of the Worker that the manager who conducted the ARM issued the Stage 1 verbal warning. This is contrary to the Employer’s Management Attendance Policy which does not provide for the issuing of any sanction without an investigation and then a disciplinary hearing. The Stage 1 verbal warning in this case was issued in an arbitrary manner and a breach of the Employer’s policy and a denial of natural justice and fair procedures as outlined in S.I. 146/2000 Code of Practice. The Worker raised a formal grievance in which she outlined the flawed nature of the process and the fact that the Stage 1 verbal warning issued could not be appealed. There was no grievance meeting held and a response merely confirmed the sanction and upheld the process. There is an example of another employee who had their absence dealt with in an alternative manner. That employee had an ARM, then a separate disciplinary meeting. By way of contrast the Worker was issued with the Stage 1 verbal warning but without any disciplinary meeting. The Worker’s representative made reference to various agreements which provided that an appeal would be granted at Stage 1. The Worker was entitled to have the matter investigated in a fair and objective manner. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer’s representative raised a preliminary issue in relation to this dispute. The Worker was issued with a Stage 1 verbal warning on 25/04/2025 and remained on file until 25/07/2025. On the basis that this warning has now expired and has been expunged from the Worker’s file the dispute is null and void. In that context the Employer’s representative noted that in similar cases before the Courts, including the Labour Court, it was confirmed that where a warning had expired the issue was moot and the Labour Court in LCR21763 noted “The Court cannot expunge something that no longer exists”. In relation to the actual dispute it was submitted on behalf of the Employer that after the Worker missed 11 shifts she was invited to an ARM on 25/04/2025 and was issued with a Stage 1 verbal warning. The Worker then submitted a grievance and this was responded to and the grievance outcome notified. The ARM and resulting Stage 1 verbal warning were issued in strict adherence to the relevant policy, procedure and long-standing custom and practice that has been agreed with the trade unions. The employer’s policy clearly states that a Stage 1 verbal warning issued under stage 1 cannot be appealed. The Employer confirmed that they are currently reviewing their existing policies and procedures. It was submitted on behalf of the Employer that, as the Stage 1 verbal warning expired on 25/07/2025 the dispute before the WRC is moot and requests the Adjudication Officer to find in favour of the Employer. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Worker is requesting the WRC to issue a recommendation which will: (1) Expunge the Stage 1 Verbal Warning from the Worker’s file (2) To issue a finding that the Worker has been subjected to a coordinated campaign by the Employer (3) To issue a finding that the Employer acted unfairly in not affording the Worker the right to appeal (4) To issue a finding that the Employer acted fundamentally unfairly in not conducting a proper hearing into the Worker’s grievance.
In relation to point (1) it is not disputed that the duration of the Stage 1 verbal warning was for a period of three months. It was confirmed by the Employer that this warning expired and was removed from the Worker’s file on 25/07/2025. As this warning is no longer in place I cannot issue any recommendation in relation to this.
I cannot find any reason to believe that the Worker was subject to a coordinated campaign by the Employer. It was not disputed that the Employer was entitled to engage with the Worker in relation to her absence when she reached the threshold outlined in the Employer’s policy and procedures.
The lack of an appeal process for a Stage 1 verbal warning is unusual. The Employer confirmed that this was because they had reduced the length of the warning from six to three months and applies to absence related Stage 1 verbal warnings. However, employees generally have the right to appeal any formal disciplinary warning, including a Stage 1 verbal warning. It would be good employment practice for an impartial internal appeal mechanism to be available for Workers at all stages of the disciplinary processes. I note that there is a review of current policies being undertaken and I am recommending that the Employer reviews this anomaly as part of that process.
I note that the Worker is seeking a finding that she was not afforded a proper hearing of her grievance. This grievance was conducted as a desktop exercise and the Worker submitted details of her grievance on 29/04/2025. I am satisfied that this grievance was reviewed and a comprehensive reply was issued. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As the Worker’s Stage 1 verbal warning has expired and been expunged I cannot issue a recommendation in relation to this matter. I am recommending that the Employer incorporate a review of its policy of not allowing an appeal at stage 1 of its disciplinary policy as part of the overarching review of policies and procedures currently taking place.
Dated: 19th of June 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Verbal warning. Review of policies. |