Case Number: ADJ-00008355. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Docket NumberADJ-00008355
Date01 January 2018
PartiesPayroll administrator v Hospital


Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008355


ActComplaint/Dispute Reference No.Date of Receipt Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 CA-00011120-001 03/05/2017 Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/11/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell


In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Industrial Relations Act 1991 CA-00011120-001


The claimant is appealing the decision by the respondent to issue her with a verbal warning


The claimant works as the payroll and Superannuation Officer. The claimant has to deal with approximately four hundred and twenty employees. The claimant follows the protocol as set down by the respondent. The claimant feels she is being single out for unfair treatment coincide with the foregoing the claimant works from the Leave Policy concerning payment of sick pay. An employee was not paid for a period of sick leave as the claimant had not received a sick certificate to cover that period of leave. This along with five other employees who were not paid for sick leave in the same period. One of the employees contacted the claimant why she had not been paid. The claimant submitted that the informed the person that she did not receive a sick certificate. Consequently, it transpired that the HR Manager had received the sick certificate but he had failed to pass it onto to payroll for their attention. Nevertheless, a bank transfer was processed on that day so the employee would be paid. It was submitted that the respondent was incensed at the non-payment of sick pay to the employee as a result they issued the claimant with a verbal warning. The union argued that there was a total miscarriage of justice. The evidence supporting same is set down in the leave policy which the claimant had complied fully with. The Union is seeking that there is no justification for issuing the verbal warning and therefore must be retracted and rescinded from the date of implementation The respondent submitted that the claimant’s job description makes it clear that her role is to liaise with Department heads and the HR Manager regarding pay related matters. This she did not do in this case of the complainant. Had she done this, she would have learned that the HR manager was in receipt of the medical certificate and was absent on sick leave The respondent disputed the claimants evidence that she was acting in accordance with the payroll policy was felt that this policy wasn’t strictly applied It was submitted that the claimant was working next door to the complainant and was required to interact with the HR team as part of her normal duties, the claimant's assertion that she was unaware of the complainant absence from work was not accepted by the investigator. The respondent submitted that taking all matters into account the issue of the verbal warning was justified in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT