ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002445

Complaints for Resolution:  

 Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/10/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly 

Procedure: 

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and Section11 Minimum Notice and terms of Employment Act, 1973 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, 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: 

 Complainant’s Submission and Presentation: 

The complainant commenced his employment with the respondent in October, 2005. He worked as a painter and decorator. At the time of his dismissal his gross remuneration was €700 per week. In November, 2015 the complainant was working as a manager on a site. The respondent approached him and asked for the site keys. He stated that he had lost the contract and that there was no more work for the complainant. The complainant noticed that four of the respondent’s employee came onto the site to do the duties that he had been previously charged with . The complainant formed the opinion that he was singled out for two reasons. Firstly, he had asked for a pay increase a few months prior to being dismissed. Secondly, he had been out on stress related sick leave on several occasions over the past few years.

 He made several attempts to secure employment immediately following his dismissal. He handed out CV’s and registered with FAS and several employment agencies. He did manage to secure employment through an agency however it was only for a period of six weeks. During that time he earned approximately € 2,500.00 gross.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation: 

No appearance.

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.

Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to the Minimum Notice claim consisting with a grant of redress in accordance with Section 4 of the 1973 Act. 

There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Respondent. The burden of proof in Unfair Dismissal claims lies with the Respondent. The complainant’s evidence that he was simply told by his employer that there was no more work for him is uncontroverted. No procedures were followed. The complainant was not afforded an opportunity to state his case. The complainant was given an opportunity to appeal the decision to dismiss him. 

In all of the circumstances I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. 

The complainant has an obligation to mitigate his loss. Evidence was adduced that he applied for a number of positions and registered with various employment agencies. He has only managed to secure six weeks work since November, 2015. No documentary evidence was produced to demonstrate the effort the complainant has made to secure employment. In order for the complainant to satisfy his legal obligation to mitigate his loss he must demonstrate that significant effort has been made to do so. The complainant failed to do so.

In all of the circumstances I award the complainant the sum of € 15,000.00

Dated:   8 November 2016