ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001297

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/03/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

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 employed as a General Operative with the respondent from the 8^th.June 2014 – 8^th.July 2015.His complaint of unfair dismissal was received by the commission on the 21^st.Dec.2015.

He asserted that he was unfairly dismissed without any grievance or disciplinary procedures being followed. The claimant was approached by his manager on the 7^th.July 2015 and was advised he was being let go owing to his tardiness in arriving at work. The claimant was shocked as he had never been the subject of formal warnings or any disciplinary measures. The claimant’s union corresponded with the respondent in October 2015 asserting that the claimant had not been afforded fair procedures or natural justice and that the respondent had failed to comply with SI146/2000.The union invoked the provisions of a number of authorities in support of their assertions that the claimant had been denied natural justice and that the sanction of dismissal had been disproportionate.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

 The respondent asserted that the dismissal was justified as there had been ongoing attendance and lateness problems with the claimant. It was submitted that the claimant had been spoken to in relation to these performance issues but there had been no improvement arising from same. It was submitted that the respondent was a start up company struggling to establish their position in a competitive environment and could not afford to employ staff with ongoing attendance issues. Prior to the dismissal the claimant was working on Saturdays only and was in receipt of €69.50 per week.

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.

Decision:

At the hearing the claimant accepted that he had been spoken to about his lateness - he asserted that any absence issues arose as a result of personal injury.

Having reviewed the evidence presented by the parties I am satisfied that the claimant was unfairly dismissed owing to the failure on the part of the respondent to afford him natural justice and fair procedures. While I note the claimant has acknowledged that some lateness issues had arisen and this was a significant factor leading to the dismissal, I accept the union’s contention that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate and the claimant should have been afforded an opportunity to remedy his behaviour. In the circumstances I am upholding the complaint of unfair dismissal and require the respondent to pay the claimant €750 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Dated: 1^st June 2016