ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003228

Complaints for Resolution:  

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/10/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Procedure: 

In accordance with Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Attendance at Hearing: 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed after she queried a reduction in her wages.

The dismissal occurred when she was told by the Manager/Owner to go home and await a letter. She received correspondence later to state that she was on sick leave due to stress, but she contends that this was a disingenuous move on the part of the employer as she was effectively dismissed. Correspondence and file was submitted at hearing tracing the communications between the complainant and her solicitor and the respondent.
The complainant’s representative advised the hearing that he was told by the employer that he would not be attending the hearing and the company was in examinership or receivership.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

Decision:

CA-00004625-001

The respondent did not attend or send a representative to the hearing so I base my findings and decision mainly on the uncontested evidence of the complainant. I note the correspondence and file submitted to the hearing. I note the respondent’s denial therein that the complainant was unfairly dismissed or dismissed at all. There was a P45 which indicated that the employment ended on 1^st July 2016. I accept the complainant’s evidence that the Employer shouted at her to get out of the workplace on 20^th January 2016. I note there was a meeting on 29^th February 2016 between the complainant and a company representative but no resolution came about. Based on the uncontested evidence of the complainant I find her complaint that she was unfairly dismissed to be well founded. The remedies of re-instatement and re-engagement are not appropriate in the circumstances where the complainant was clearly significantly stressed and where the company may no longer be in full operation. I therefore recommend that the respondent pay to the complainant the compensatory sum of €5,000.

CA-00004625-002

The complainant was entitled to six weeks minimum notice. I find her complaint to be well founded and I require the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €1,800.

Dated:   3^rd January 2017