ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002293
Complaint 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-00001980-001 | 13/01/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/09/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Attendance at Hearing:
By | Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | A Complainant | A Stud Farm |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation
The complainant was employed by the respondent company from October 1994 up to his dismissal on 21st October 2015. It is submitted that the complainant’s dismissal was in full accordance with fair procedures and was carried out on foot of several formal warnings. The complainant’s repeated refusal to attend work at his rostered time resulted in ongoing uncertainty and disruption to operations as well as undermining the authority of the complainant’s line manager.
The complainant openly refused to attend work on his normal roster on 12th September 2015 due to unilateral action he decided to take because of personal work grievance. Despite being advised by HR to process his grievance through the grievance procedures the complainant continued to refuse to attend his rostered weekend work after 12th September through 29th September and 30th , 3rd and 4th October and 10th and 11th October. The respondent had no option but to escalate the disciplinary process and the complainant was warned in relation to his obligations to attend work. However, notwithstanding the efforts and patience of the respondent, the complainant continued quite blankly to refuse to show up for his rostered duties.
After repeated verbal warnings, and a final written warning, the respondent had no option but to initiate an internal investigation consistent with fair procedures on foot of which he was dismissed.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant’s representative made a submission, summarised as follows:
The complainant worked for 20 years as a Groom, and it was when he was moved to the hospital part of the stud that problems began. He was put on duty with totally inexperienced and unqualified staff. He was frequently obliged to work on his own with 10 or 12 thoroughbreds with illness, and required to administer medication to them. His job had changed dramatically since 2014, and he told management he could not work in those conditions. The response he got was a disciplinary letter after he did not attend on 21st September.
He was rostered again on 5th October again with completely inexperienced staff. He was concerned about safety and it is submitted that the respondent has an obligation in this regard.
It is contended that the complainant’s situation did not amount to gross misconduct and did not warrant dismissal. It is contended that at most, there was a justifiable breach of contract on his part, due to safety concerns.
Decision
The complainant was dismissed having refused to work his scheduled roster on a number of weekends. The complainant’s contract of employment required him to be flexible in that weekend work would be required. He therefore contributed significantly to the difficulties he encountered and ultimately the loss of his employment. While I find that the respondent employed fair procedures , there is no evidence of consideration of the complainant’s long service, and the possibility of transferring him back to his previous duties. For that reason I find the punishment was too harsh. I uphold his claim that he was unfairly dismissed. I find that the remedy of compensation is appropriate as the breach of the employment relationship indicates that re-employment or re-instatement are not appropriate in the circumstances. Having taken into consideration the contribution that the complainant made, I require that the sum of €6,000 compensation be paid to the complainant by the respondent.
Date: 25th November 2016