ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004577
Complaint
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-00006621-001
24/08/2016
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Location of Hearing: Lansdowne House, Dublin 4
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, andfollowing the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant was employed with the Respondent from 27th June 2015 until he terminated the employment on 27th July 2016. He was paid €25,000 per annum and worked 37.5 hours a week with half hour lunch break deducted. The Complainant stated he was given a written statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment but he was not provided with a copy. The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 24th August 2016 alleging he was constructively dismissed by the Respondent.
The Respondent did not attend the Hearing.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant applied for a position on the FAS Job seekers site. The Complainant provided a copy of that to the Hearing. This specifies that the successful employee will work 5days a week and 37.5 hours a week. His job was to print from digital a physical object and to fit these to vehicles or buildings. If this was a two-person job then he was accompanied by the named Respondent, otherwise he went on his own. He stated that in his first month he worked from 9am to 5.30 pm with half hour lunch break but he was only paid for 37.5 hours. He also stated that on several occasions he was dropped at a site with the material and he was to be collected later by the Company van. He gave evidence that in his first month when he was on site in Skerries, Co Dublin, he was not collected until 7pm but he was not paid for the extra hours. He made a complaint to the Respondent the following days but he was informed this was the way it was and he returned the Company keys. However the Respondent requested him to stay and an agreed finish time of 5pm would apply going forward.
The Complainant stated he was on site in September 2015 in Belfast and he was required to work at heights without a harness. The Complainant stated he did not possess a cherry picker licence himself. But on this site he was expected to operate without a harness or the appropriate licence. He stated that he commenced work at 7am and returned at 9pm. This was a 14 hour day and he got 30 minutes for lunch break. He stated that in September 2015 he was expected to work on a Church Steeple and was told to wing it as he was not provided with a harness. The Complainant stated he did provide his own hard hat and boots. While In November 2015 while working on a mobile scaffold in Blackrock, Dublin, again he was not provided with a harness and he injured his back and he was on certified sick leave for 9 days following a visit to a Hospital but he was not paid for these days. The Complainant stated that while out on sick leave he saw his job advertised and when he raised this with his Employer the Ad was removed.
In February 2016 he was driving the Company Van to a specified site but the van had no Tax or CVPW. He was stopped by a Garda and turned back but he approached the site by another route and completed the job
In May/June/July 2016 the Respondent was moving Premises and material had to be moved from the current premises to the new location in the same industrial estate. The Company Van had still not been taxed but he was instructed to drive the van over a three month period to move all the Company materials. This was on a Public road.
On 25th July 2016 he was on a site in a named location and working 15 metres high again with no harness. He stated he considered this to be a health and safety risk and he left this site. He made a formal complaint to the Respondent on 26th July 2016 and he attended a meeting with the Respondent on 27th July 2016 at 8.50 am and he left at 9.05 as he was being abused by the Respondent for not completing the job on 25th July 2016 despite its health and safety risks.
The Complainant stated that he has not worked since and provided evidence from the Department of Social Protection that he had been in receipt of Jobseekers Benefit up to 7th March 2017.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend.
Findings and Conclusions:
On the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find that the complaint is well founded. The Complainant had raised health and safety issues with the Respondent and the Complainant had also suffered a back injury and was medically certified unfit for work for 9 days due to an injury while at work
Decision:
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.
On the basis of the evidence and the uncontested evidence of the Complainant and in accordance with Section 8 (1) (c) of the Act, I declare the complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €10,000 (ten thousand euro) within 42 days of the date of this Decision.
Dated: 15th May 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Key Words:
Constructive dismissal