Case Number: ADJ-00026996. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00026996
• Hearing Date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 January 2021
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026996

Parties:

	Employee	Employer
Anonymised Parties	Airport Ramp Agent	Airport Ground Services provider

Representatives Peter Glynn SIPTU Ruth Heenan

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00034520-001	07/02/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/12/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute. A remote hearing took place on 01/12/2020.

Background:

The employee is employed as Ramp Agent with the employer. The employment commenced on 01/08/2017. The employee’s rate of pay is €11.56 per hour and works 33 hours per week. On 07/08/2019 the employee was allocated to a flight. She advised her team leader (Mr A) that she was due to finish at 17.30. The team leader said she could leave at 17.15. A second team leader (Ms B) was also on the flight. An incident took place between Ms B and the employee. Arising from this a workplace investigation took place. This resulted in disciplinary action been taken and the employee was issued with a verbal warning. This sanction was upheld on appeal. The employee is seeking to have a recommendation that the warning was unwarranted and that she should be rewarded for the unnecessary stress and anxiety caused by this matter.

Summary of Employee’s Case:

The employee was on duty on 07/08/2020. She was allocated to a flight and she advised her Team Leader (Mr A) that she was due to finish at 17.30. As the flight was delayed Mr A advised the employee that she could go back to the canteen as she was due to finish soon. Mr A asked Ms B to ask the employee to walk back as they needed the vehicle known as an ETB to be available for an incoming flight. The employee was sitting in one of those ETB’s and Ms B used a hand signal to indicate that the employee should walk back. The hand signal was used as ear protectors are worn in the ramp environment due to the surrounding noise levels. An interaction took place between Ms B and the employee. It was reported by Ms B that this interaction became abusive and that there was shouting and screaming involved. The employee disputes this and submits that she has carried out her duties and responsibilities with professionalism and diligence. Arising from the incident the employer conducted an investigation which resulted in a disciplinary hearing. This resulted in the employee being issued with a verbal warning which would remain in force for a period of six months in line with the employer’s disciplinary policy. This sanction was upheld on appeal. It was submitted on behalf of the employee that the employer was in breach of natural justice and acted unfairly and unreasonably and did not give proper consideration to the mitigating circumstances. The warning was unfair as the employee had made her employer aware of the treatment she was receiving from her team leads and there was no investigation arising from this. This grievance was fundamental in that she was open to addressing any issues through a mediation process, but her employer took her team leaders report and used this a basis for instituting disciplinary proceedings against her. At the hearing the employee outlined a number of examples whereby she feels that her employer treats her unfairly and this has a distressing effect on her.

Summary of Employer’s case:

The employer is a provider of ground and air cargo services. They provide the aviation industry with a broad range of services and products. The employee commenced employment on 01/08/2017 as a ramp agent. The duties of a ramp agent include the provision of under-wing ground support services to aircraft and includes the loading and unloading of baggage and cargo and sorting and transporting baggage to and from aircraft. The employer raised a preliminary issue and contends that there is no longer “a live trade dispute at this point due to the expiration of this sanction.” The employer submitted a number of Labour Court cases in support of this: LRC21862: In this case the Chair of the Court stated: “The disciplinary procedure of the Respondent provides that a final written warning shall ‘remain on a staff member’s personnel file for 12 months... The Court finds therefore that the warning has no existence following the lapse of 12 months from date of issue. The Court therefore concludes, in accordance with the disciplinary code under which it was issued, that the fact of a written warning having been issued to the Complainant has no meaning for the Complainant in terms of his employment of his relationship with his employer since 13th July 2018. In those circumstances the Court has decided that no decision it could make on the substance of the within matter could have any effect on the worker concerned.” LCR21763: “The issue came before the Court on 25th July 2018 at that point the final written warning had expired and therefore the issue was moot. The Court cannot expunge something that no longer exists. It was submitted on behalf of the employer that the sanction which the employee wishes to appeal has been expunged and removed from her file. In line with LCR21763, the issue is now moot, and, in line with LCR21862 the Adjudication Officer can make no decision on the substance of the matter. In relation to the substantive matter the employer outlined the details of the incident which occurred on 07/08/2019. The employee was with the supervisor (Mr C) and when he advised the employee that she was assigned to a particular flight she responded that she was due to finish at 17.30 and would be leaving ad 16.55. Mr C advised that she could leave at 17.15. When the flight was delayed Mr A advised Ms B to tell the employee that she could go back to the canteen as she was due to finish. Mr A also asked Ms B to...