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-00002563-001

12/02/2016

The Complainant was employed as a security officer from the 1^th of October 2013 to the 1st of January 2016. He alleges that he was constructively dismissed by the Respondent when he was not allowed to return to his original job or an alternative job working the same number of hours. He filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 12^th of February 2016.

The following is a summary of the Complainant’s oral submission. On the 29^th of October 2015, the Complainant was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing to be held on the 30^th of October 2013. The meeting took place on the 9^th of November 2013. He was advised that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss concerns relating to “alleged exchange of moneys from patrons to gain entry to the hotel”.

During this hearing the Respondent alleged that e-mails had been received, alleging that there was an exchange of money from patrons to the Complainant in order to gain entry to the hotel. The Complainant was not shown the e-mails at the hearing. He denied that he was involved in any inappropriate practises as alleged by the Respondent. At the end of the hearing the Complainant was advised by the respondent that he would provide him with details of the e-mails that he received and records of phone calls relating to same. He made several phone calls to the Respondent seeking copies of the e-mails and details of the alleged phone calls from customers. He received a telephone call offering him night work in Navan. The work offered was at reduced hours. No other work was offered to him. It was clear to him that the Respondent had no intention of offering him work in the future with reasonable hours. This left him with no choice but to request his P45 and try to find work. He feels he was constructively dismissed as a result of the actions of the Respondent.

The Respondent did not attend at the hearing.

The Complainant was invited to a disciplinary hearing on the 9^th of November 2013. The Respondent did not provide the Complainant with all the documents necessary to respond to the allegations made against him including the e-mails which had been allegedly received by them.

The Complainant understood that the Respondent would provide him with all the information that he sought which would assist him in responding to the allegations made at the disciplinary hearing on the 9^th of November 2013. The Respondent did not provide the information requested.

The alternative work offered to the Complainant was night work at reduced hours.

I find that the Complainant was not afforded due process and fair procedures in the manner by which he was removed from his regular work. He was not provided with the documentation that was the source of the allegations made against him.