Case Number: ADJ-00024278. Workplace Relations Commission
| Docket Number | ADJ-00024278 |
| Hearing Date | 03 December 2019 |
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION and Recommendation.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024278
Parties:
|
|
Complainant |
Respondent |
|
Anonymised Parties |
Warehouse supervisor |
Builders suppliers |
|
Representatives |
Simon Donagh BL Cahir O'Higgins & Company Solicitors |
Peninsula Group Limited. |
|
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-00031032-001 |
19/09/2019 |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 |
CA-00031032-002 |
19/09/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/12/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint and dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint and dispute
Background:
|
This a complaint of unfair dismissal submitted under both the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and the Unfair dismissals Act 1977-2015. The complainant was employed as a warehouse supervisor with the respondent from April 2004 until his dismissal on 20/3/2019 for misconduct. The complainant earned €2924, gross, per month. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 19 September 2019.
|
|
Correct Respondent The respondent agreed to the correction of the name. This is reflected in the decision. CA-00031032-001 Complaint under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 The complainant’s barrister stated he would take instruction on the respondent’s decision to decline to participate in the hearing the complaint of unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. It was agreed that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015, based on the exact same set of facts should be heard first. CA-00031032-002 Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977-2015. The complainant was employed as a warehouse supervisor with the respondent from April 2004 until his dismissal on 20/3/2019. Incident prompting the dismissal The complainant was in charge on the 1 March when a consignment of brick particles or brick slivers were dispatched from the respondent’s premises and were not secured in the truck. As a consequence, the brick slivers were damaged upon arrival at the respondent’s client’s premises. There was a subsequent financial loss to the company. Complainant’s evidence. The complainant stated that he supervised the warehouse and was responsible for goods in and goods out. Ninety per cent of drivers do their job properly. On the day in question, the 1 March, the driver was delayed as he had spent 7 hours on two earlier deliveries. The complainant told him that the load of brick slivers had to be delivered. The complainant contacted Head Office about the driver’s reluctance to take on the job. Eventually the driver agreed to transport the load of brick slips to the respondent’s client. The complainant knew nothing about the damage to the goods until the following Wednesday. He was brought into an investigative meeting on 6 March and contrary to what the respondent alleges, he did not offload responsibility on to two other employees for loading the truck. He was unsure about which consignment had been damaged as many go out on the same day and did not remember his involvement. When asked, he said that he thought A and B probably packed the load, but he could not be sure. A second investigative meeting took place on 7 March with the warehouse manager. He was shown the CCTV footage and saw that he had lifted the load onto the truck. Following the meeting with the warehouse manager the complainant rang the truck company who dispatched the goods to the respondent’s client to get more information regarding the procedures a driver should follow when collecting a load. The truck company owner informed him that he was not at fault, that they had accepted liability and had offered to pay for half of the damages incurred. The truck company owner then stated that there was not much damage caused to the product. The respondent never informed him of this. None of his training procedures suggested that it was his responsibility to secure the load in the truck. Neither did his job description make him responsible for securing and wrapping the load onto the truck. The complainant was summoned to a disciplinary hearing on 14 March. The respondent Director accused the complainant of not following procedures. He was unaware of a written procedure regarding the dispatch of goods. The complainant asked the Director conducting the hearing on the 14 March for a copy. The Director told the complainant that he would read up on the procedures and he would go through them with the complainant. This did not happen. He received no copy of the procedures. As far as the complainant was concerned, he followed the procedure of securing the goods to the pallet. It is then the driver’s responsibility to secure the pallet to the truck as it says in the drivers CPC manual. At the disciplinary hearing he showed a photo of a transport truck that returned with a load on another occasion that was not secured, and the load had shifted in transit. This happened from time to time and was not unique to him. All these instances are recorded on the ISO file. The complainant received a letter of termination dated the 20th March 2019. On being handed the letter the Director said to the... |
To continue reading
Request your trial