ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003536
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-00005133-001 | 10/06/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/01/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
On Monday 25th January 2016, at 5.20pm, I was called up to the managing director ‘sOffice, when I entered the room the MD and his secretary were present. I was handed a letter stating that I was being made redundant, the reason I was given was downturn in advertising sales. This came as a shock to me as previously I had been assured my job was safe and not under threat by any downturn in sales of the paper. Only a couple of weeks previously on Tuesday 5th January, three other members of staff in my office were put on short time. I wasn’t in the office that day, but the managing director assured my colleagues (a fellow employee) and I were not affected by these part time layoffs and our jobs were secure. When I returned to the office on the 11th January, I was told the very same thing and that the staff on short term layoff would be reinstated at the earliest possible opportunity. However, I was called into the office on Friday 22nd January at 5.25pm. As I walked into the room, I was told to sit down as this was a serious matter. The MD was in the room along with his secretary , whom I assumed was in the room to take notes. I was not afforded the opportunity to bring anyone into the room with me as a witness. The MD then proceeded to tell me that I was being disloyal to the company, I refuted this claim and said I hadn’t. He then proceeded to tell me that I had been promoting a rival company. I was very confused about what he was talking about because I knew that I hadn’t. Then he told me that on my private facebook I had been promoting a rival company. I knew I had not as I only used my private facebook page periodically and never used it for anything connected to work and didn’t log in during working hours or have clients as friends and my page was private so only my friends could see my page. I strenuously denied this claim and asked how I had promoted a rival company for I knew that I hadn’t posted, shared, promoted or commented on any Web Development/Advertising Businesses. Then he informed me that if you click on my private facebook page, it stated that I worked at a company called GM. GM was my last employer, which by the time of this meeting had been closed down and merged with a different company and was no longer trading as GM, but was now trading as OM. I said that I hadn’t remembered to change it at any of the sporadic times I was on Facebook and I didn’t think it was of any significance as my facebook page was private only my friends could see that if they clicked onto my about page and they weren’t interested in where I worked as it’s used for social purposes. The MD told me that his Secretary had mentioned this to me before, she had said to me that the MD would “go mad” if he seen I still had GM on Facebook. The Secretary had requested to be my friend on Facebook previously so she could see my private page. She was not my manager and as there was no social media policy. When I again said that my private Facebook has nothing to do with my work.The MD said if this was how I felt that we had a serious problem. I re-iterated that my private facebook page was for my private use, I didn’t access it during working hours, no clients were friends, however my LinkedIn account which I used for professional reasons stated that I worked elsewhere. The MD then took out his own phone to look for me on Facebook to show me where I was supposedly “promoting” this rival company. He could not see my page as he was not my friend, as I had told him. He then asked how he could see some of my pictures, what he could see were profile pictures which are visible even if you have a private account. When I worked in GM, I had set up an account called LG, so that I could access the GM Facebook Business page and also any client’s pages that the company was managing. To access a facebook business page, you need to link it to a personal page. I didn’t want my work business page linked to my personal page so had set this up. When I joined another network I did the same, setting up LT.ie and the MD was aware of this. This ensured I didn’t have to log in to my personal page to access the company business page to do my work. I explained this to the MD too. There was no social media policy in place although on one occasion when asked before to share things on my private facebook account, I had done so as a courtesy. He then went on to have what I can only describe as a rant which included him calling me a ‘Cancer within the business”. He continued to say that every other business in the town was also trying to bring him down and now it was happening internally also. The MD also told me that I should hate my previous employer and told me that I was to go after all the clients I had brought to my previous employer and ‘take them by the throat’ and bring them to the previously mentioned company. I got upset during this process as I found the whole incident very distressing. I professed my innocence and stated that I had done my work exactly as I was told to. Had organized all my work for next week and then on Friday evening just before I was due to go home for the weekend, this all blew up over something that I was innocent of. The MD then told me I had the weekend to think if I wanted to be loyal to her current employer , by removing GM from my page. Over the weekend, I removed all employment details, which went unnoticed on my private Facebook page. Throughout the meeting his Secretary didn’t speak and had her head down, which I presumed was to take notes. Although when I subsequently asked for the minutes of this meeting, I was told there was none as it was deemed “a work related issue”. When I got home I was very distressed about the whole matter. I called my line manager and he was not aware of any issue or that I was called into the meeting. He told me not to worry about it and relax for the weekend and he would speak to the MD on Monday morning. On the Monday, I arrived at work and informed my line manager that I wanted to have a meeting with the MD to discuss the events of Friday evening. He said he would ask the MD when he was in the office as he was currently away and would come back to me with a time. I didn’t hear anything back all day and continued to do my work, until the MD’s secretary called my extension and said the MD wanted me to call up to the office at 5.20pm and that was when I was handed the redundancy notice. The MD told me I didn’t need to come into work tomorrow, as I would need to look for a job and if I had any other queries, I was to talk to my line manager. I was told I could contest the redundancy and did so with a letter, which I have also attached. When I sent the letter in, I was sent a response asking me attend the office for a meeting. I attended this meeting in the office on Thursday 11th February 2016. My line manager CMcB, Ms. CE(Manager) and a family friend Mr. J. M were also in attendance. During the meeting I was asked to go through what had happened and said although I had sent in my letter, I was happy to go through everything again verbally. Mr.M asked some questions, as did I but my line manager said he could not answer any questions, but would revert after the meeting. After attending the meeting, I was still none the wiser but awaited a letter answering my queries. Instead I received another phone call from my line manager , asking me to attend another face to face meeting. When I queried would I be getting a response to my letter, I was told just to come into the office for a chat. I said that I wasn’t refusing to meet with them but would like a response to my letter before I attended anymore meetings. The next day I received a letter from my line manager (dated 15th February 2016) in which I felt none of my queries were sufficiently answered but an offer of money as a gesture of goodwill was made. I wrote back rejecting this offer, as I hadn’t been treated in a fair manner and I didn’t have answers to my questions which is what I asked for. I have requested the minutes of all the meeting’s, to date, I have only been sent brief minutes of one meeting. I will submit by post all the correspondence between myself and the company, for your reference. |
The claimant submitted her dismissal was unfair as she had been unfairly selected for redundancy , without any fair procedures.She asserted that no selection criteria had applied in her selection for redundancy , there had been no advance consultation with her and no alternatives to redundancy had been considered.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.
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.
Decision:
On the basis of the uncontested evidence of the claimant , I find the claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy – no transparent matrix was applied to determine the criteria for selection for redundancy , no alternatives to redundancy were explored the claimant was not afforded her rights under natural justice and the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of SI146/2000.
I require the respondent to pay the claimant €6,000 compensation within 42 days of the date of this decision.
Dated: 10th April 2017