ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00003720

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/03/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Location of Hearing: Radisson Blu Hotel Cork

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

CA-00005371

Background: 

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on September 18th 2014 on a fixed term contract for a period of 3 months. As a result of production demands his contract was renewed for a further 12 months with an expiry date of December 31st 2015.In February 2015 the claimant suffered a foot injury at work while reversing a pallet truck.

Claimants position:

The claimant submitted that his contract of employment was not renewed as a result of issuing legal proceedings against the respondent arising from injuries he sustained to his foot from a work place accident.

Respondents position:

The respondent submitted that the decision not to renew the claimants contract was based on a decision to assess its manpower requirements in relation to the business needs for the foreseeable future. In taking into consideration these requirements a decision was made not to renew the claimants contract and 13 other individuals.

Findings: 

Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing.

I find that that there is no disputing the fact that a termination date was included in the claimants contract and that is infact the date at which the claimants employment with the respondent ceased.

I find the claimant was aware that his employment could cease at that date.

I find that the respondent is entitled to decide its staffing levels requirements based on its projected business needs and economic climate in its area of operation.

I also find that the claimant was one of fourteen individuals who did not have their contract renewed that month.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act. Based on the evidence as presented I find that the claimants employment ceased as per his contract of employment and as such no dismissal took place.

CA-00005372

Complaint under Section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

Penalisation:

Background:

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on September 18th 2014 on a fixed term contract for a period of 3 months. As a result of production demands his contract was renewed for a further 12 months with an expiry date of December 31st 2015.In February 2015 the claimant suffered a foot injury at work while reversing a pallet truck.

Claimant’s position:

The claimant submitted that he was penalised insofar as his contract of employment was not renewed as a result of issuing legal proceedings against the respondent arising from injuries he sustained to his foot from a work place accident.

Respondents position:

The respondent submits that the claimant has not made out any valid complaint under the Act.

The respondent submitted that the claimant does not appear to accept the legitimate right of management to follow its own established and legal procedures regarding the recruitment and retention of personnel.

28.(1)  Therefore to make out a complaint, the claimant must prove a contravention of Section 27. The relevant provisions of Section 27 are subsections (1), (2) and (3). In order to make out a complaint under section 27, the claimant must demonstrate that :

a) he has been penalised or threatened with penalisation within the meaning of subsection (1) as illustrated by subsection (2), and

b) that such penalisation was for one of the reasons specified in subsection(3).

This interpretation has been repeatedly expressed by this court in Toni and Guy Blackrock v O'Neill hs 095.

Findings:

Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing.

I find the claimant has not established or demonstrated any evidence that supports his claim of penalisation.

I find the claimant’s contract of employment expired as per terms expressed within his contract of employment..

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I find the claim is not well founded and falls.

Dated:   18^th May 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell