Tesco Ireland (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation) v A Worker (Represented by Mandate Trade Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 20 August 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 8 JIEC 2002
• Date: 20 August 2018
• Docket Number: ADJ-00011456 CA-00015178-001,FULL RECOMMENDATION,DECISION NO.LCR21763

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/18/144

DECISION NO.LCR21763

ADJ-00011456 CA-00015178-001

PARTIES:

Tesco Ireland (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)

and

A Worker (Represented by Mandate Trade Union)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Mr Hall

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00011456 CA-00015178-001.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 10 May 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

• “I believe the respondent was justified in issuing the complainant with a final written warning however in having the same person conducting the investigation hearing they have breached their own procedures on this subject.

In view of this breach I recommend that the final written warning should remain on the complainant's file for a period of 6 months and not for 12 months as stipulated by the respondent .

In view of the fact that the final written warning was issued on 1 ^st June 2017 it should be removed forthwith” .

3 The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 20 June 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

4 A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 July 2018.

DECISION:

5 This case is an appeal by a Worker of the decision of an Adjudication Officer. The issue in dispute between the parties is the Employers decision following a disciplinary process to apply a final written warning to the Worker.

Union's case

6 The worker was involved in industrial action which had been sanctioned nationally by his Union albeit not at his own place of work. On his return to work he was subjected to a disciplinary process with cumulated in a final written warning. It is the Unions contention that he should not have been disciplined, that the disciplinary process was flawed, and that the outcome of same i.e. the 12 months final warning should be expunged from his file.

Employer's case

7 It is the Employer's case that the Worker was on an unauthorised absence and was disciplined in line with its procedure. The outcome of which was a 12 months final written warning which issued on 1 ^st June 2017 and in accordance with the Company policy expired on the 30 ^th May 2018.

Decision

8 The issue came before the Court on the 25 ^th July 2018 at that point...