ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008956

Complaint:

ActComplaint/Dispute Reference No.Date of Receipt Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00011802-001 08/06/2017   Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/10/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 Office Manager/Legal Secretary from 3rd October 2016 to 23rd March 2017. She was paid €2,750 per month. She has claimed that she did not receive minimum notice.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant had previously experienced a delay in payment of her wages. A further delay occurred on 28th February 2017. This gave rise to a conversation between the Respondent and the Complainant on 23rd March 2017. In that conversation, the Respondent accused the Complainant of informing other temporary staff about the delay in payments of wages. The Complainant denied this and subsequently emailed the Respondent setting out what had happened. On the Respondent’s return to work they acknowledged the email and then summarily dismissed the Complainant without any recourse to fair procedure in breach of her contract and SI 391/2000. The Complainant received no notice pay and she has now claimed one week’s pay. It is her position that the Respondent cannot rely upon a summary dismissal for gross misconduct as the Complainant denied what she was accused of. She was denied fair procedure. She accepts that she phoned her husband about the delay in wages in an open office. She did not speak to the agency. The agency worker may have done so but she cannot be sure. She did not deserve to be summarily dismissed. She is entitled to minimum notice.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated that she spoke to the Complainant on 1st March about a delay in her wages and it was sorted out by a cash payment. On 23rd March the Complainant had discussed at length with an agency worker about the delays in pay. The Complainant has admitted to discussing this matter with an agency worker. The matter was resolved by 10.30am so there was no need to act as she did. Because of this a decision was taken to summarily dismiss her on the grounds of breach of confidentiality. This company does work on behalf of the State and couldn’t have them being “bad mouthed” to others. This was a summary dismissal so no notice was due. The complaint is rejected.

Findings and Conclusions:

I note that the Complainant was dismissed for alleged breach of confidentiality. I note that this refers to the Complainant allegedly speaking to an agency worker about the delays in payment of wages that in turn gave rise to the agency contacting the Respondent expressing concerns about this matter. I find that the Respondent did not carry out an investigation. I find that they jumped to a conclusion that the Complainant had spoken to the agency and /or the agency worker who in turn may have spoken to the agency. I find that the Respondent has not established that a breach of confidentiality had been committed. I find that they did not find out who spoke to the agency. I find that the Complainant was denied fair procedure and natural justice. I find that this dismissal was a very blunt instrument in the circumstances. I find no basis for the dismissal, and no basis for a summary dismissal   Therefore I, find that the Complainant is entitle to minimum notice as per the terms of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.

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. I have decided that the Respondent has breached this Act. I have decided that the Complainant is entitled to one week’s pay in notice. I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €634.62 within six weeks of the date below.    

Dated: 15.12.17 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly Key Words: Minimum Notice