ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000405
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-00000620-001 | 03/11/2015 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/05/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] 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:
The Claimant was initially dismissed from his employment by letter dated 26/05/2015. The Claimant appealed the dismissal and the appeal was refused by letter dated 23/07/2015. The Claimant was paid pending the appeal. The dismissal was procedurally unfair. The Claimant was questioned by the investigation branch on 09/09/2014 and it seems a report emanated from that questioning but the claimant was never shown a copy of the report (the Claimant calls for a copy of that report). There was pre judgment by Lillian Jones evidenced in letter dated 16/12/2014. The Claimant was not furnished with relevant statements prior to the disciplinary hearing. Memos were exchanged between key personnel relative to the dismissal which were not furnished to the Claimant. The Claimant never met with the person who made the dismissal in relation to the matters. The dismissal was substantively unfair. The Claimant was not guilty of misconduct as alleged. The Respondent relied on a written warning which was stale at the time of dismissal. Dismissal was disproportionate in all the circumstances. The Claimant reserves the right to rely on the reasons to show that the dismissal was unfair. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Claimant was dismissed on the grounds of wilful delay in the delivery of post in circumstances where it was deemed that he had re-posted mail which should have been delivered on his route. He was dismissed for misconduct amounting to breach of trust.
Details of the interview with the Investigation Brach and procedures followed were presented to the Hearing. The Claimant was presented by his union in the course of the process.
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.
Section 9(3) of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 9(4) of that Act.
Section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 200 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.]
Issues for Decision:
Was the termination of t6he Claimant’s employment unfair in the circumstances?
Legislation involved:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977
Decision:
Both parties made detailed written submissions which I have considered. The Claimant accepted that he reposted mail. This however, is an exception rather than a rule. In this case it was the volume involved (155 mail items) that cause concern of his employer. The Respondent has an legal obligation to ensure the prompt delivery of mail entrusted to it. The Claimant failed to do his job by not delivering the mail. In these circumstances I find the dismissal fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
I do not find the claim of unfair dismissal well founded and it fails.
Dated: 15 December 2016