ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00003525
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An artistic director | A group of hotels |
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) 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-00005167-001 | 13/06/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, 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 Artistic Director with the respondent on 29th May 2014. He was informed that his employment would be terminated on 5 February 2016. In correspondence from the respondent reference was made to misbehaviour. No disciplinary procedure was invoked |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was employed as Artistic Director with the respondent on 29th May 2014. He was informed that his employment would be terminated on 5 February 2016. In correspondence from the respondent reference was made to misbehaviour. No disciplinary procedure was invoked. Before effecting a dismissal it is necessary for an employer to follow fair procedures. Furthermore the contract of employment refers to a disciplinary process. The claimant incurred costs through having to attend a second hearing on this matter. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance by or representation on behalf of the respondent. I am satisfied that the claimant was on notice of the hearing having been informed of the date and venue by letter dated 12 January 2017. By email dated 7 February 2017 the respondent denied that the complainant had transferred to their employment from a previous company. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The burden of proof is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was fair. In this instance the respondent did not appear and denied that the complainant was an employee. Based on the evidence presented by the complainant I am satisfied that he was an employee of the respondent at the time of his dismissal. The complainant was dismissed without recourse to disciplinary procedures and therefore I conclude that he has been unfairly dismissed. |
Decision:
Section 41 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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 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.
In accordance with s.7 of the Act, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant: The sum of € 30,000 (the equivalent of 26 weeks’ pay) in compensation. The total award is redress of the Complainant’s statutory rights and therefore not subject to income tax as per s. 192 A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 as amended by s.7 of the Finance Act 2004. |
Dated: 21 April 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal without using disciplinary procedure |