ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002831

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/06/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and the abovementioned Act, 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).

Preliminary Issue(s):

The complainant submits that her dismissal arose wholly or mainly as a result of her trade union membership. In the narrative supplied with her complaint she states “My probation period was extended and I was told I would not be appointed to my role without having any opportunity to see or rectify any written complaints against me. To the best of my knowledge I was carrying out my role in a satisfactory manner. I joined the company pension scheme on August 26th 2015 anticipating a retirement date in 2028 as stated in my policy document. I did not have a good working relationship with my line manager. I found him intimidating and brusque in most of my meetings with him and I finally joined the union on Oct 18th. The first union deduction was made from my paycheck on OCT 27th. I was informed I was unsuitable for my role on November 2nd. I strongly believe that my joining the SIPTU branch of the union on Oct 18th had a bearing on the decision not to continue my contract. I believe my manager found my membership of a union unacceptable.”

The respondent submits that the complainant does not have the requisite service to sustain a complaint under the Act (her employment commenced on the 29^th of April 2015 and ended on the 24^th of November 2015). She was dismissed on the basis of her failure to complete her probation period successfully. She has claimed that her dismissal arose from her trade union membership. The respondent has a long standing relationship with the trade union and it negotiates collective and individual agreements with that trade union either directly or through the state machinery as appropriate. The respondent acceded to the complainant’s request to have her trade union subscription deducted from her wages having received her request on the 27^th of October which was three working days prior to the last day on which she worked. She did not utilise her trade union representation or appeal her dismissal internally. She refers to a belief that her joining a trade union had a bearing on her dismissal. The respondent has no knowledge that she was active in behalf of the trade union nor has she advanced any argument or otherwise to justify her assertion in this regard.

Decision:

The complainant has not adduced any evidence whatsoever to support her submission that her dismissal arose wholly or mainly from her trade union membership. I find against the complainant in that matter and consequently I lack jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Act.

The complaint therefore is not well founded.

Dated:   9^th December 2016