Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
Decision Upheld
Claimant denied rights under Natural Justice awarded €4,000
Case Number - ADJ-00001875
The Claimant commenced employed as a Chef in 2005. It was submitted that the Claimant had a history of performance deficits resulting in informal counselling and a first written warning being issued in March 2014. A written warning was issued in May 2015 after which the Claimant committed to raising his performance.
An alleged breach of food hygiene arose later that month. No action was taken. In September 2015, the Claimant was issued with a final written warning for a mistake made in the serving of food and for failing to accept responsibility for same. It was submitted that the Claimant walked off the shift and absented himself from work that weekend.
An investigation commenced and the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct in October 2015. The Claimant did not appeal and it was submitted that the Respondent had acted in accordance with their internal procedure and had no alternative but to dismiss the Claimant.
The Claimant was alleged to have acted aggressively later in September towards his Line Manager and smelt of alcohol. The Organisation decided to take no action in regard to these concerns at this time.
At the hearing, the Claimant denied smelling of alcohol in late September as alleged, having received a final written warning and attributed any performance deficits to understaffing.
In determination of its decision, the Adjudication Officer concluded on the balance of probability that the Respondent had already made their minds up that the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct in advance of the Claimant giving his account of events from his perspective. The Adjudication Officer found that the Claimant was denied his rights under natural justice and accordingly upheld the complaint of unfair dismissal. In finding that the Claimant contributed significantly to his own dismissal, awarded an amount of €4,000 in compensation.
In this case, the Employer decided not to take any action in regard to the allegation of the Complainant smelling of alcohol. In instances in which an Employee arrives at work and is alleged to be under the influence of an intoxicant, a key question for consideration is to determine whether there is a risk posed by the Employee’s intoxication. For example, if an Employee is required to liaise with and support clients / service users, the Employer is under an obligation to remove the person from any potential risk which may arise due to being under the influence of an intoxicant. Irrespective of whether any risks are identified, an Employer must still be confident that the Employee is not a risk to himself or herself, or other Employees. If an Employer feels that this person is a risk, then there should be action taken to remove him or her from the risk.
It is also advisable for an Organisation to have a clear and detailed drug and alcohol / intoxicant policy in place. Such a policy should include details in relation to intoxicants within the workplace, including the possible consequences where it is determined an Employee is under the influence of an intoxicant, or found to be in the possession of an intoxicant at work or during working time.
Decision Not Upheld
Employee with Alcohol in his System Not Unfairly Dismissed
Case Number - ADJ-00001889
The Complainant attended work in July 2015 and was asked to take a blood test for suspicion of attending work under the influence of alcohol. The blood test was positive. The Complainant was immediately suspended from his work with pay pending a disciplinary hearing. The Complainant appeared at a disciplinary hearing in September at which he admitted to have an alcohol problem. The Complainant was summarily dismissed later that month.
The Complainant appealed the decision. The decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was upheld.
In determination of its decision, the Adjudication Officer noted that:
Accordingly, taking all the above factors into account, the Adjudicator found that the claim of Unfair Dismissal was not well founded and the claim was dismissed.
This case serves as reminder that concerns which arise as they relate to intoxicants in the workplace can be a contentious issue. No statutory requirement exists for Employees to undergo testing in relation to being under the influence of intoxicants or requirement exists for Employers to test Employees for intoxicants. However, as this case illustrates, Employers may carry out drug and alcohol testing where it has been provided for in either the Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment (Contract of Employment,) Employment Policies and Procedures or with the Employee’s express consent.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has seen the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA). In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and much more streamlined, simplified process.
Claimant denied rights under Natural Justice awarded €4,000
Case Number - ADJ-00001875
The Claimant commenced employed as a Chef in 2005. It was submitted that the Claimant had a history of performance deficits resulting in informal counselling and a first written warning being issued in March 2014. A written warning was issued in May 2015 after which the Claimant committed to raising his performance.
An alleged breach of food hygiene arose later that month. No action was taken. In September 2015, the Claimant was issued with a final written warning for a mistake made in the serving of food and for failing to accept responsibility for same. It was submitted that the Claimant walked off the shift and absented himself from work that weekend.
An investigation commenced and the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct in October 2015. The Claimant did not appeal and it was submitted that the Respondent had acted in accordance with their internal procedure and had no alternative but to dismiss the Claimant.
The Claimant was alleged to have acted aggressively later in September towards his Line Manager and smelt of alcohol. The Organisation decided to take no action in regard to these concerns at this time.
At the hearing, the Claimant denied smelling of alcohol in late September as alleged, having received a final written warning and attributed any performance deficits to understaffing.
In determination of its decision, the Adjudication Officer concluded on the balance of probability that the Respondent had already made their minds up that the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct in advance of the Claimant giving his account of events from his perspective. The Adjudication Officer found that the Claimant was denied his rights under natural justice and accordingly upheld the complaint of unfair dismissal. In finding that the Claimant contributed significantly to his own dismissal, awarded an amount of €4,000 in compensation.
In this case, the Employer decided not to take any action in regard to the allegation of the Complainant smelling of alcohol. In instances in which an Employee arrives at work and is alleged to be under the influence of an intoxicant, a key question for consideration is to determine whether there is a risk posed by the Employee’s intoxication. For example, if an Employee is required to liaise with and support clients / service users, the Employer is under an obligation to remove the person from any potential risk which may arise due to being under the influence of an intoxicant. Irrespective of whether any risks are identified, an Employer must still be confident that the Employee is not a risk to himself or herself, or other Employees. If an Employer feels that this person is a risk, then there should be action taken to remove him or her from the risk.
It is also advisable for an Organisation to have a clear and detailed drug and alcohol / intoxicant policy in place. Such a policy should include details in relation to intoxicants within the workplace, including the possible consequences where it is determined an Employee is under the influence of an intoxicant, or found to be in the possession of an intoxicant at work or during working time.
Decision Not Upheld
Employee with Alcohol in his System Not Unfairly Dismissed
Case Number - ADJ-00001889
The Complainant attended work in July 2015 and was asked to take a blood test for suspicion of attending work under the influence of alcohol. The blood test was positive. The Complainant was immediately suspended from his work with pay pending a disciplinary hearing. The Complainant appeared at a disciplinary hearing in September at which he admitted to have an alcohol problem. The Complainant was summarily dismissed later that month.
The Complainant appealed the decision. The decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was upheld.
In determination of its decision, the Adjudication Officer noted that:
- All circumstances were considered, and in particular the background issues of alcohol and safety were treated sensitively and with due care.
- At all times, fair and correct procedures as required by the Unfair Dismissals Acts were followed by the Respondent.
- The actions and non – actions of the Complainant were completely contributory to his dismissal.
- The Complainant was employed in a particularly safety critical role.
- The Complainant had already participated in an Alcohol recovery programme in 2003 and accordingly would have been fully aware of all Alcohol related matters.
Accordingly, taking all the above factors into account, the Adjudicator found that the claim of Unfair Dismissal was not well founded and the claim was dismissed.
This case serves as reminder that concerns which arise as they relate to intoxicants in the workplace can be a contentious issue. No statutory requirement exists for Employees to undergo testing in relation to being under the influence of intoxicants or requirement exists for Employers to test Employees for intoxicants. However, as this case illustrates, Employers may carry out drug and alcohol testing where it has been provided for in either the Statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment (Contract of Employment,) Employment Policies and Procedures or with the Employee’s express consent.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has seen the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA). In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and much more streamlined, simplified process.
Note on WRC:
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our HR & Employment Law Support Services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Advice on all Employment Law, Industrial Relations and HR queries or issues
- Review, Development and Implementation of Contracts of Employment and Employee Policies and Procedures
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment, Conducting Disciplinary Meetings
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice
- Organisational Management or Change Management Initiatives – including review / development of Performance Appraisal / Management Systems and Organisational Development
www.adarehrm.ie
