Dublin City Council v A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 26 June 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 6 JIEC 2602
• Date: 26 June 2018
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DECISION NO. LCR21745 ADJ-00011196 CA-00014908

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/18/105

DECISION NO. LCR21745

ADJ-00011196 CA-00014908

PARTIES:

Dublin City Council

and

A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Hayes

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00011196

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation ADJ-00011196. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 10 May 2018 the Worker appealed the recommendation of the Adjudicator to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 June 2018. The following is the Decision of the Court:

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3 3. 1. It is unreasonable and unfair to have imposed a permanent sanction on the worker as he continues to suffer the financial consequences of this sanction.

4 2. There is no impediment to the worker returning to his former position as the others who were directly involved in the incident that led to the disciplinary sanction have now retired.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

5 4. 1. The Employer issued disciplinary sanctions to the worker following an investigation of a very serious workplace incident.

6 2. These sanctions were issued in line with Dublin City Council's Disciplinary Procedures and the worker did not appeal the sanctions at the time.

DECISION:

7 The Claimant in this case was disciplined by way of being issued with a written warning under the terms of the disciplinary procedure. In addition, the Claimant was, as part of the sanction imposed on him at that time, transferred out of the Parks Department to another Department within Dublin City Council. As a consequence of that relocation the Claimant has suffered a loss of income in the amount of circa €5000 per annum. Such a loss of income was not envisaged at the time of the transfer and was not intended to constitute an element of the sanction imposed on him.

8 Sanctions imposed on staff under the terms of the Disciplinary Procedure in force in Dublin City Council are time limited. A written warning has a lifespan of one year after which it is removed from a worker's personnel file. In this case that element of the Disciplinary Procedure has been applied.

9 However, the decision to...