ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001866

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/07/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and under Section 8 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.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a security officer from the 11^th of October 2013 to the 27^th of November 2015. He alleges that he was constructively dismissed by the respondent following a disciplinary hearing on the 30^th of November 2015 when he was not allowed to return to his original job or an alternative job working the same number of hours. He filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 12^th of February 2016.

Complainant’s Submission:

The following is a summary of the Complainant’s oral submission. On the 29^th of October 2015, the Complainant was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing to be held on the 30^th of October 2013. He was advised that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss concerns relating to “alleged exchange of moneys from patrons to gain entry to the hotel”.

During this hearing the Respondent alleged that e-mails had been received , alleging that there was an exchange of money from patrons to the Complainant to gain entry to the hotel. The Complainant was not shown the e-mails at the hearing. He denied that he was involved in any inappropriate practises as alleged by the Respondent. At the end of the hearing the Complainant was advised by the respondent that he would be taken off the hotel roster and that attempts would be made to find him work elsewhere while further investigations will continue. He was told to go home and that he will be contacted about work. He received a telephone call offering him night work in Navan and Trim. The work offered was at reduced hours and further from his original workplace. No other work was offered to him. It was clear to him that the Respondent had no intention of offering him work in the future which left him with no choice but to request his P45 and try to find work. He feels he was constructively dismissed as a result of the actions of the Respondent.

Findings:

The Complainant was invited to a disciplinary hearing on the 30^th of October 2015. He was only provided with one days’ notice. At this meeting he was taken off his regular roster of 23 hours per week. The Respondent did not provide the Complainant with all the documents necessary to respond to the allegations made against him including the e-mails which stated had been received by them.

The disciplinary hearing was never reconvened. The Complainant understood that it would reconvene when the investigations were completed.

The alternative work offered to the Complainant was night work at reduced hours and at a greater distance from his previous regular job. As a result, the Complainant had no choice but to seek other work which he did after 5 weeks.

I find that the Complainant was not afforded due process and fair procedures in the manner by which he was removed from his regular work. He was not provided with the documentation that was the source of the allegations made against him. The Respondent failed to reconvene the disciplinary hearing as promised, so the Complainant was afforded no opportunity to present his case.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act and under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing I find that the complaint is well founded in that the Complainant was constructively dismissed by the Respondent, contrary to the terms of the Unfair Dismissals act 1977. I order the Respondent to pay to the claimant compensation in the sum of €2,400. This sum must be paid within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Dated:   19^th September 2016