FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 PARTIES : ARAN SECURITY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY HRS CONSULTANTS) - AND - RARES IACOB (REPRESENTED BY MARIUS MAROSAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no ADJ-00002505.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker appealed the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officerto the Labour Court on 29 November 2016 in accordance with Section 8(A) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 May 2017. The following is the Determination of the Court:-
DETERMINATION:
This is the Complainant’s (Rares Iacob) appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00002505) dated 16 November 2016. The Complainant did not attend before the Adjudication Officer . He submits he did not receive notification of the hearing from the Workplace Relations Commission. The Adjudication Officer found the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (“the Act”) failed for want of prosecution. The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 29 November 2016. The Court heard the appeal on 19 May 2017, along with a number of other appeals referred by the Complainant.
The Complainant was employed by Aran Security Limited (“the Respondent”) as a security guard from 21 February 2015 until his employment was terminated. The last day that he worked a shift for the Respondent was 31 January 2016. The Respondent submits that it informed the Complainant that it had no further suitable work for him during the course of a meeting at its offices in Kingswood Business Park “during the first week of February 2016 and gave him two weeks’ notice”. The Respondent submits, accordingly, that the Complainant does not have sufficient service to maintain a claim of unfair dismissal under the Act. This position is at odds with the following written statement submitted to the Court by Mr Barry Kinsella, Operations Manager with the Respondent: “Also, at the time, Aran Security had been notified of new contracts that we were told would start shortly. This would have made suitable work available to Rares Iacob. Rares Iacob knew of these possibilities and asked me to keep him on the books in the hope that they would materialise without him having to go on the dole. I agreed to do this for a few weeks in the hope these jobs would start soon and that Rares Iacob could avail of the work. However, those jobs never started and we finally let Rares Iacob go on the 2ndof March 2016.” The date of termination referred to in Mr Kinsella’s written statement tallies with the date of cessation stated on the P45 issued to the Complainant.
The Respondent submitted that the reason for the Complainant’s dismissal was redundancy. The Respondent outlined the various sites that the Complainant had worked on during his employment. His last position was at the Crosscare site on Thomas Street commencing in January 2016. The Respondent submits that local management at the site felt the Complainant was unsuitable for the work there. At the time, the Respondent had a contract for only one other site (Calmount). Security guards employed at this site were required to drive a company van while patrolling. The Complainant did not have a full driver’s licence. The Respondent, therefore, selected him for redundancy (with one other colleague) ahead of a colleague with shorter service who did have a valid driver’s licence.
Decision
The Court finds that the Complainant has sufficient service to maintain his complaint under the Act. The Court further finds, having regard to all the circumstances, that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The appropriate remedy in this case is compensation. It took the Complainant some five months to obtain alternative employment. The Court awards the Complainant €2,500.00 in compensation for his financial loss accruing from his unfair dismissal. The award is, accordingly, taxable.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
7 July, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.