ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004242

Complaint for Resolution:

Venue: Ardboyne Hotel, Navan, Co. Meath

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and under Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and under Section 7 of the Terms of Information Act, 1974 and under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 following the referral of the complaints 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 counter staff attendant with the Respondent from the 30^th of March 2015 to the 27^th of July 2016. He alleges that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent contrary to Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. He alleges that he did not revive a written statement outlining the terms and conditions of his employment contrary to Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. He alleges that he did not receive his minimum notice entitlements contrary to Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. He filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 28^th of July, 2016.

Complaint 1- Re: Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977- Ref. NO. CA 00006180-001

Complainant’s Submission:

That he has been working for the Respondent in a take-away restaurant from the 30^th March, 2015. He was paid €110 for working a 14 hour week. The manager, Ms. L.S. reduced his working hours without notice. When he complained, she told him that she wanted to go full-time and that there was no more work for him. He told her that this was unfair and that he received no notice in relation to this change. The next day he received a text from her saying that he was sacked for incompetence and that was the end of the matter. He feels that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent without due process or fair procedures.

Respondent’s Submission:

The respondent did not attend at the hearing.

Decision:

Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of that Act.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the complaint is well-founded. The Complainant was not afforded due process or fair procedures in the manner in which he was dismissed by the Respondent. This is contrary to the Terms of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

I note that the Complainant has failed to find work in order to mitigate his loss. I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the sum of €440 for breaches of Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1967.

This sum must be paid within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Complaint 2-Re: Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. Ref No: CA-00006180-002

Complainant’s Submission:

That he has worked for the Respondent for more than one and a half years and that he never received a written statement outlining his terms and conditions of employment contrary to the terms of Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

Respondent’s Submission:

The Respondent did not attend at the hearing.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of those Acts.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the complaint is well-founded. The Complainant was not provided with a written statement at any time during the course of his employment.

I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the sum of €200 for breaches of Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

This sum must be paid within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

The Complainant withdrew the following complaints during the course of the hearing:

Complaint 3-: Re. Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 Ref No: CA-00006180-003

Complaint 4-: -: Re. Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 Ref No: CA-00006180-004

Complaint 5-: Re. Industrial Relations Act, 1969 Ref. No. CA-00006180-005

Complaint 6-: Re. Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 Ref. No. CA-00006180-006

Complainant’s Submission:

That he was not paid his statutory rights in relation to his minimum notice entitlements of one week as is prescribed under Section 4(1A) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

Respondent’s Submission:

The Respondent did not attend at the hearing.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of those Acts.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the complaint is well-founded. The Complainant was not paid his statutory entitlement in relation to minimum notice.

I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the sum of €110 for breaches of Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

This sum must be paid within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

The Complainant withdrew the following complaint during the course of the hearing:

Complaint 7-: -: Re. The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. Ref. No: CA-00006180-007

Dated:   21^st April 2017