ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000600

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00000880-001	16/11/2015

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/05/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

On The 5th of Nov at eleven pm 2015 the owner of the fast food restaurant called me into the office, following a phone call i had gotten from him that day saying he was very unhappy with me, being manager i had left a fryer on the night before. I worked the night before from 5pm to 4.30 am with four trainee staff. i did leave the fryer on. It was the first time that had ever happened to me on a shift. What really got to me was that on an on going basis electrical equipment was left on by all the supervisors, which i would have let the owner know about. I would have advised him to go through the disciplinary process with all the individuals involved after countless coaching sessions by me failed to sort out the problem. He ignored all of my requests to do so. On the night he let me go he said to me he didn't think i knew how serious it was as the place could have burned down. He's reason for letting me go. I started laughing at him because on the last occasion i showed the owner the electrical equipment left on all night he laughed and said it wouldn't be a bad thing if it burned down the place. I responded by saying god forgive you. I also said to him that night i didn't believe that was the real reason. I asked him to tell me what it was, i said it was about money. A few weeks previously he had reduced my salary from 30000 per year to twelve euro per hour without any warning. When i insisted he give me a reason he said he didn't have to give me one and that was the end of it. He said i could finish out the week if i liked. I choose not to as i was stunned by such treatment. As i write this email now I am still waiting for my final weeks payment which should be payed Friday of every week.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

There was no appearance by the respondent. It was clarified that the respondent’s correct title was as set out above.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

Issues for Decision:

Whether the complainant was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the legislation and is she covered by the legislation.

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Section 6 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 states:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purpose of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there are substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

This puts the onus on to the employer to justify the grounds of the dismissal as otherwise it will be deemed to be an unfair dismissal.

In addition, Section 2(1)(a) of the Act requires a complainant to have at least one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him / her.

Decision:

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 29^th August 2014 as a manager in the respondent’s fast food restaurant. Her employment terminated on 5^th November 2015. I therefore find that the complainant has the service qualification laid down in the Act.

There was no attendance by the respondent.

In evidence the complainant confirmed the details as set out in her complaint form. She explained that the restaurant was a franchise operation and that ownership of the franchise had changed in February 2015. Her relationship with the present owner was difficult at times as he never seemed to have any procedures for dealing with staff issues. The complainant said that she had reluctantly agreed to the change in her salary to €12.00 per hour but there was no written contract.

With regard to the incident which led to her employment being terminated the complainant stated that no damage had been caused to the fryer that had been left on overnight. She had been in work for about five hours the following evening when she was called to the office by the owner. The complainant had explained that she was on duty with four trainee staff who were not trained to use the equipment. The complainant also pointed out other occasions on which a fryer had been left on. The owner told her he was letting her go and failed to give a reason for doing so. She refused the offer of working the remainder of the week and left the premises.

Since that time the complainant had only managed to get three week’s work in a retail store at Christmas. She had applied for many jobs without success. The respondent was still trading from the same premises.

Based on the uncontested evidence I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. There was a complete lack of procedures on the part of the respondent in dealing with the issues and therefore a denial of natural justice to the complainant. The preferred form of redress sought by the complainant is compensation and I therefore award the sum of €20,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977 to 2007.

Dated: 10^th August 2016