ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000196
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 |
CA-00000278-003 |
17/10/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts |
CA-00000278-004 |
17/10/2015 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/01/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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 Complainant started work on the 2nd of October 2015. She gave evidence that she really enjoyed working there on the first day until she was introduced to a senior member of staff. Her working relationship with that senior member of staff and the owner of the business was strained from the beginning of her employment.
The Complainant gave evidence that she worked very long hours. She was not allowed have a lunchbreak or a rest break. She was not provided with a contract of employment, grievance procedure, disciplinary procedure or bullying and harassment policy/procedure.
On the 13th of October 2015 there was a mix up with regard to payment for food between two different groups of customers /tables. The Complainant admitted that she made a mistake. However when she spoke to the senior member of staff, she screamed at her in a very aggressive manner. When she spoke to the Respondent, he would not listen to her and instead told her to “get out”. He told her that she was “done” and to get out
She was told she would not get paid until the Respondent “figured out what money she owed him”.
The witness who was a friend of the Complainant met her after this incident and found her to be very upset.
She returned to the restaurant a week later to collect her pay. She asked to speak to the Respondent, however she told that he was very busy and that she would have to wait another week for her payment.
She did receive a payment of some wages. She never received a P45.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
None
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.
Issues for Decision:
Complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 provide that where a trade dispute exists and involves workers (within the meaning of Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990) a party to the dispute may refer a case to an Adjudication Officer for a recommendation.
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
Industrial Relations Act 1969
- —(1) The Minister may from time to time appoint a person who shall be known as and is in this Act referred to as a rights commissioner to carry out the functions assigned to him by this section.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner
Decision:
The Respondent was informed of the time, date and place at which the case was to be heard but failed to appear at the hearing.
In the absence of satisfactory rebuttal of the Complainant's allegations, I accept the Complainant’s case as presented.
I find that Complainant was subjected to bullying and harassing behavior.
In addition the dismissal in this case was unfair, as she was not afforded any opportunity to present a defence before a decision to dismiss her was taken.
In these circumstances I am satisfied that the manner of her dismissal fell far short of the standard of fairness that could be expected from a reasonable employer. This is contrary to procedural fairness and good practice. It is also contrary to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure (S.I. No. 146 of 2000). The failure of the Respondent in that regard rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair.
In the circumstances I recommend that the Respondent should pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €2,000 in full and final settlement of her claims, within a period of six weeks from the date of this Recommendation.
I also recommend that the Respondent issue a P45 to the Complainant within this time frame.
Dated: 24th March 2016
Marguerite Buckley