Airport chiefs have been urged to give a security worker his old job as a supervisor back after he was demoted for kissing a subordinate while they were at work together on a screening line two summers ago. <\/p>\n
The decision to demote the worker from airport search supervisor to a junior position on the airport search unit was \u201cexcessive\u201d, a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator decided in a non-binding recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act 1969.<\/p>\n
The tribunal heard the supervisor had more than five years\u2019 service on the airport search unit, screening passengers and baggage, with two years as supervisor, when he was placed under investigation in September 2023 and suspended. <\/p>\n
The employer said it considered the complainant to have committed gross misconduct by \u201ckissing a colleague during active operational duties\u201d on the two days before his suspension. <\/p>\n
The other worker, a more junior airport search unit officer, had been operating an x-ray machine on one occasion, and was working in a \u201cpremium services area\u201d under the supervisor on the other occasion. <\/p>\n
The outcome of the disciplinary process was that the complainant was demoted from his \u20ac46,000 a year supervisor post and placed on a final written warning. <\/p>\n
The decision reflected the \u201csafety-critical nature of the breaches, the worker\u2019s leadership responsibilities and the need to preserve the integrity of security operations\u201d, the employer submitted. <\/p>\n
The disciplinary officer\u2019s view was that the kissing \u201chad the potential to compromise both safety and the employer\u2019s reputation\u201d. <\/p>\n
The demotion and warning were upheld on appeal, an internal appeals officer taking the view that the sanction was \u201cconsistent with those issued in comparable cases\u201d, the tribunal heard. <\/p>\n
Joseph Ateb of the Siptu Workers\u2019 Rights Centre, who appeared for the worker, said his client had appealed the decision as being \u201cexcessively harsh\u201d and contended that his previous good record in employment was not given due consideration. <\/p>\n
The final written warning had expired by the time the WRC heard the case, leaving only the demotion as an issue, the tribunal noted. <\/p>\n
Adjudicator Breiffni O\u2019Neill wrote that the employer\u2019s decision not to consider transferring the supervisor to another department \u201ccalls into question the true extent of the safety concerns\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis inconsistency undermines the credibility of the employer\u2019s rationale and suggests a lack of proportionality,\u201d he wrote. <\/p>\n
\u201cIn light of the worker\u2019s unblemished prior record, his acceptance of responsibility and the employer\u2019s failure to consider a less punitive and reasonable alternative, I find that the additional sanction of demotion was excessive,\u201d Mr O\u2019Neill wrote. <\/p>\n
His recommendation on the dispute was that the demotion be rescinded and that the worker be reinstated as a supervisor \u201cwith full restoration of duties and remuneration\u201d within a week. <\/p>\n
The recommendation was published without the names of either the worker or his employer, in line with the WRC\u2019s usual practice under the Industrial Relations Act\u2019s voluntary arbitration process. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Airport chiefs have been urged to give a security worker his old job as a supervisor back after…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":81,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[73],"tags":[79,18,19,17,80,81],"class_list":{"0":"post-80","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-business","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-eire","10":"tag-ie","11":"tag-ireland","12":"tag-work","13":"tag-workplace-relations-commission"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/81"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}