Case Number: ADJ-00018896. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00018896
• Date: 18 December 2019
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: Production Operator v An Automotive Company

Procedure:

In accordance Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

This case centres on a claim for Unfair Dismissal in December 2018 following a Disciplinary process some 2 months earlier where a demotion and final written warning had been issued. The Respondent disputed the claim and contended that the dismissal was of “the last straw” variety and ha been fully warranted following a sequential exchange of comments covered by gross insubordination. The Complainant presented as a Lay litigant and presented his case orally. the Respondent was represented by an Independence Human Resource Consultant. The Respondent and 4 witnesses. As the Complainant had not prepared a written statement to present at hearing, I offered him some time to do so post hearing. I requested the Respondent furnish me with whatever notes were in existence for noted meetings on August 29 and September 29, 2018. I also sought a copy of the cited grounds of appeal or the application of Disciplinary sanction. The Respondent hand delivered documents more than this request some time post hearing. the Complainant was provided with an opportunity to comment on all.

Summary of Respondents ’s Case:

The Respondent operates an Automotive part (safety device) business and has 20 employees. The sole customer is the United States. The Respondent rejected the claim for Unfair Dismissal. The Respondent outlined that the Managing Director was ill and absent from the business between April and August 2018. During the time line of February2018 to April 2018, three Polish female workers, based at the plant had raised grievances. This prompted a reclarification programme on Dignity at Work issues and other Cultural awareness issues, which was strongly opposed by both Supervisors. The Company Director addressed everyone at the plant on the need for change and made an extensive presentation on the need for change. The Complainant, a Day Supervisor eventually signed the staff handbook and committed to the Cultural changes. The Respondent hired a new operations Manager in June 2018. Industrial machines were discovered to be running differently inter shift and these were reconciled. The Respondent found shortfalls in the Supervisors accountability in the face of a line finishing early. Meetings and a formal investigation followed, and the Respondent formed the view that the complainant was not co-operative. He obtained legal advice on CC TV. A Disciplinary process followed where the Complainant was demoted to general operator and a deduction in pay followed. He was not provided with a new contract and was not expected to serve a probation. The Complainant accepted this change. The Respondent undertook a Communications Meeting with the Managing Director at the helm. The Complainant was combative and argumentative during this meeting and insulted the MD public ally in front of the other workers. The Respondent formulated a plan to write to the complainant and ask him to meet the company directly to seek to clarify his intentions at the company. This was unsuccessful and further profanities followed and the MD conscious of the complainant’s background in boxing expressed a fear of the complainant. the Respondent was certain that there was now no choice outside dismissal and dismissed the complainant for gross insubordination. The Respondent did not offer an appeal. Evidence of Mr O, Operations Manager Mr O told the hearing that he was a new appointment. He gave an outline of the Mechanical system surrounding the Inter shift machinery. Time was captured electronically and generated a report between the day and night patterns. Supervisors were involved in both systems. He discovered that certain staff on night pattern had been leaving early. There were discrepancies of leaving up to an hour early and the matter was moved into a Disciplinary process. Both Supervisors had different recalls on the dateline of the early finish times. The System was rectified post discovery and the complainant was cooperative, up to a point. The Supervisors were the sole employees who faced disciplinary sanction, the other 6/7 shift employees were spoken to. Evidence of Mr B, Engineering Manager, February 2018 Mr B told the hearing that an issue had arisen on the Technical system where down time was not scheduled and clocking in had not occurred over a certain period (Nov 2017-August 2018) This created a problem as the product carried a 5-year warranty and a 25-year recall in product. The CC TV was relied on to nett the issues. Mr B submitted that there was a potential for fatal injury to end user in the case of injury. During cross examination, the Complainant confirmed that he had always clocked in to the point where he had even got other employees to cover this for him in sick leave. Evidence of Mr MD, Managing Director Mr MD had been in business for over 30 years and believed in communication meetings. Agendas were standard, and the meetings were time tabled during the changeover of staff at a 2.30 start. Attendance was compulsory and those not rostered were paid for their attendance time. Mr MD was aware that he complainant was not present at the November 28 meeting and approached him directly to attend. Mr MD formed the view that the complainant was grandstanding and deeply offensive in his direct statements. He found him aggressive and hostile. The meeting ended on foot of his insults. Mr MD formed the view that the complainant had not accepted responsibility for the operational lag in the machines on both shifts. He believed that this was at the root of his confrontational behaviour. He denied that staff were just numbers at the plant. He decided to address him by letter seeking that the complainant would address the group. Mr MD was prepared to put matters behind him if this could be achieved. Once the complainant came into the requested meeting, it was very apparent that he had no intention of apologising and the abuse was re-activated. Mr MD understood that the complainant may have had issues in his personal life which were troubling him. Mr MD was not prepared to be usurped and cut the meeting, dismissed the complainant and arranged for him to be escorted out. During cross examination, he re-affirmed that staff were paid to attend communication meetings as the complainant said he was not aware of that practice. He confirmed that he had said “I will decide what to do with you “He denied that he was motivated by ego and told the complainant directly that he was out of control. He denied standing over the complainant grinding his teeth. He had not considered measures short of dismissal or offered an appeal to the dismissal. He confirmed that the other Supervisor was there longer than the complainant and this informed his retention on day pattern. In conclusion, the Respondent contended that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed but had destroyed any trust and confidence placed in him by the company through the repeated episodes of in subordination coming so quickly in the aftermath of his demotion and application of a final written warning. There was no way back following the December 5 meeting.

Summary of Complainant ’s Case:

The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent Automotive Company in February 2015. He was promoted through the ranks to the role of Supervisor on day pattern. He worked a 40-hour week in return for €667.19 gross per week. He was stepped back to an Operator Role in September 2018 and his pay was reduced to €449.20 per week. The Complainant was dismissed from his employment on 5 December 2018 and found new work on 4 April 2019. In the event of his claim succeeding, the complainant sought the remedy of compensation. The Complainant presented as a Lay litigant and outlined his case orally. He submitted that he was approached by the Acting Production Manager, Ms A in October 2017 and requested to rotate in his role as Supervisor on a trial basis onto the evening shift. He was reluctant as the 3-11pm shift was unattractive and objected to its but eventually accepted the change and a 15% pay rise.

...