Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Motor Dealer

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-00006283-001

04/08/2016

The complainant had been in a relationship with the respondent which had ended some years ago. In 2014 she entered a new relationship but she had an amicable arrangement with the respondent to the effect that if her new situation ever led to difficulty between them she would give three months notice and leave.

In April 2016 she advised the respondent that she was moving residence to be closer to her new partner.

The complainant says that the   news of her proposed house move had a very negative effect on the respondent   and that he reacted badly to it.

In the course of a discussion   he said to her ‘I want you gone, get   your stuff and go’. She took this as a termination of her employment and   she did not return to work.

She replied to him by saying   ‘You can’t dismiss me’.

She had a ‘company’ car which   she had to leave behind although the respondent made no reference to the car.  

The respondent had a discussion   with the complainant some days before the exchange that led to the   termination of her employment concerning money he had advanced to her some   years earlier in the course of their relationship, and whether she proposed   to re-pay it.

She replied to the effect that   she would make provision for the debt in her will as she could not raise the   money in her current financial circumstances.

On the day of the alleged   termination he told her that the arrangement she proposed was acceptable to  him.

He followed up some days later   with a call to her saying she did not have to lose her job over the incident   and that she should forget about it and return to work. However she   declined.

The first issue arising here is whether a dismissal took   place.

If the words alleged by the complainant to have been   spoken by the respondent are to be believed i.e. ‘I want you gone, get your stuff and go’ then it is probable that   she was dismissed.

There may be a ‘heat of the moment’ defence and the role   of the subsequent phone call is relevant here. The respondent said it was   made three days later, the complainant says it was a week later.

Even taking the respondent’s   version, three days is too long to undo a ‘heat of the moment’ action. The   complainant said that at that stage it would have been too uncomfortable for   her to go back as her departure was known to her co-workers.

Even the words used by the   respondent (according to his own evidence) were ambiguous.

He stated that he said to her   on the phone ‘there is no need to lose   your job over this’ could be read to refer to either interpretation of   events.

In that respect, I found the   respondent evasive and unclear. When specifically invited to clarify the   ambiguity referred to in the course of the phone call he could not. In   addition, in response to a direct question as to whether he uttered the   critical words alleged by the complainant he said ‘Possibly’.

Of course the inter-personal   relationship between the parties played a part in the matter.

But the respondent remained at   all times the complainant’s employer and the obligations falling on him in   respect of any termination of employment are that he should have been   unambiguously clear. In the complainant’s version it was a week before he   made contact with her and her evidence in general was more credible.

Even then, his evidence was   that he said that there was no need to ‘lose’, (not ‘leave’) your job which   tends to reinforce the complainant’s version of events.

If there was any doubt about   what had transpired in the course of the exchange, and again I see no reason   to doubt the complainant’s version of what was said, then an obligation fell   on the respondent to move quickly to clarify what he meant. Three days is not   ‘quickly’, and a week most definitely is not.

I considered whether the   complainant might have been peremptory in her decision to leave her   employment, and whether the emotional content of the former relationship   played a part in her decision.

I dismissed it however, in line   with my general reasoning here that an employer has a particular   responsibility in the management of the employment relationship, and whatever   his long term intentions may have been the words he uttered were at best irresponsible   and at worst, (and more probably) a clear indication to the complainant of   the termination of her employment.

I can see no basis on which the   complainant could do other than take them at face value and as an indication   that her employment was being terminated, especially given the delay in   making the phone call to her.

I find therefore that a   dismissal took place and that in the absence of any cause or procedures it   was unfair.

The complainant remained out of   work for five months after the dismissal and also lost social welfare   benefits to which she was entitled as a part time worker. Her losses in   regard to the former were €4,400 and arising from the latter €3,500.

I uphold complaint CA-00006283-001 and award the complainant   €8,900 subject to normal statutory deductions.