ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001822

Complaints for Resolution:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00002520-001	10/02/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00002520-002	10/02/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/07/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977,and section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Attendance at Hearing:

By	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	A chef	A bar and restaurant

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant submits that he was never given any written terms or conditions of employment and was never given a contract.

He further states that he was employed as Head Chef in the respondent’s restaurant since August 2014. And that the respondent approached him after work, at approximately 7.15pm, and told him it wasn't working out. He didn't give any specific reason but just said it wasn't working out and that he was letting him go. The complainant was upset and shocked at his dismissal as he had no inkling this was coming and was never subject to disciplinary proceedings at work. The complainant is adamant that no verbal or written warnings were issued to him, and he submits that diary notes which the respondent entered in evidence were not taken at the time or date entered.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent stated that the complainant was employed from 1^st August 2014 until 16^th November 2015. From an early stage, he (the respondent) had to speak to the complainant about stock issues, costs associated with throwing out food, and customer complaints. It is submitted that the respondent had no option but to dismiss the complainant after he had issued him with verbal warnings, written warnings and noting that the complainant had no intention of improving his performance.

It is agreed that no written terms of employment were issued to the complainant.

Decision:

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

Section 3 of the Act provides that an employer is obliged to furnish an employee with written terms of conditions of employment within two months of commencement. It is common case that Section 3 was not complied with by the respondent. I declare the complainant’s complaint to be well founded and I require the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €1,100 compensation.

Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

There was much conflict of evidence in this case, particularly in relation to verbal and written warnings. I note the evidence of the complainant that he did not receive any written warning or letter of termination. He submitted some copies of text messages in which he sought the respondent’s reasons for termination in writing. I also note that there were no formal meetings with the complainant where allegations could have been put to him, the right of reply and the right to representation and appeal. The Statutory Instrument S.I. 146 of 2000 sets down the basic principles and procedures which employers should follow so that the rules of natural justice can be applied in employment situations. In this instant case, no such procedures were followed. For that reason, I find the complainant’s dismissal was unfair. I accept the evidence given by the respondent that the complainant was uncooperative in relation to complaints. I find therefore that the complainant contributed somewhat to the situation. I find that compensation is the appropriate remedy, re-instatement or re-engagement are not appropriate in the circumstances.

I declare the complainant’s complaint to be well founded and I award redress in the form of compensation in the amount of €5,000.

Dated: 4^th November 2016