Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8    of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00008232-001

17/11/2016

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11    of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00008232-002

17/11/2016

The complainant’s employment with   the respondent began on the 4^th August 1998 and came to an end on   the 14^th October 2016. He asserts that he was dismissed from his   employment and that this dismissal was unfair. He also makes a minimum notice   claim. The respondent denies the claims. The complainant was in receipt of a   salary of €46,400 at the time of his dismissal, but had separately agreed a   change role on a new annual salary of €40,000.

The respondent outlined that this   matter arose from a confrontation between two staff members on the 25^th   August 2016 which was witnessed by both the transport administrator and the   complainant. Following this incident, the Warehouse Assistant received a   verbal warning. As part of this process, the transport administrator drafted   a witness statement and read it out to the complainant. The complainant later   asked her to change her statement. There were differences in the statements   provided by the transport administrator and the complainant about the   incident. The statement of the transport administrator refers to “over here”   and “a string of expletives”. The complainant’s statement does not refer to   the words “I will not be spoken to that manner” and that the Warehouse   Assistant had used a string of expletives. It was submitted that the   complainant’s statement supports the Warehouse Assistant. It had been the   complainant who suggested his demotion to the supervisor role.

Giving evidence about the incident,   the transport administrator observed the Warehouse Assistant come into the   office and ask the complainant for the following day off. The IT worker, then   charged into the office and pointed his finger at the Warehouse Assistant,   saying “what’s your name?” The Warehouse Assistant replied that he would not   be spoken to like that and in that manner from over there.’ He also asked for   the IT worker’s name. The Warehouse Assistant said ‘f*** off out of my face’.   The IT worker asked the transport administrator for the Warehouse Assistant’s   name, and she replied that she did not want to get involved. She was not   aware what had occurred before between them.

The transport administrator said   that she later received a phone call from the HR Manager, who said that she   had to follow up on the incident and to get the transport administrator   involved. The IT worker had made a complaint. She emailed the HR Manager at   11.26am. She read out the text of the email to the complainant, and he said   that this was not what he had heard. At around 3 or 3.30pm, the complainant   came into the office and sat down in the chair opposite her. He said to her   that she should go to the Distribution Manager to change her statement to say   that she could not hear what words were used as there was so much shouting   going on. The complainant told her that the Warehouse Assistant could lose   his job and then left the room. She felt that the comment undermined her and   she felt frightened. She also felt uneasy and asked the Distribution Manager   to join her every time the complainant entered the office, and told him of   the incident with the complainant. She later spoke with the HR Manager and   emailed her the following day. She felt undermined, intimidated and scared.

In cross-examination, it was put to   the transport administrator that in her interview notes, she does not refer   to asking the Distribution Manager to join her in the room. It was put to the   transport administrator that this did not happen; she replied that she did   not include it as it was then not relevant. It was put to the transport   administrator that she had denied texting the complainant, but he had replied   to say that he was there to support her; she acknowledged that the   complainant had texted on the day of the incident. It was put to the   transport administrator that the Distribution Manager was new to the job; she   replied there had been problems between the Warehouse Assistant and the   Distribution Manager. She started as a temp in 2015 and became full-time in   August 2016, some two weeks before the incident. It was put to the transport   administrator that she was asked in the interview notes whether she had   texted the complainant; she acknowledged that she replied “no” as she had   forgotten this. She agreed that the complainant was initially supportive. She   described the office as a four-booth office located in the warehouse. She said   that all the statements had been done at the same time and in the same   office. She thought the complainant had written his statement in the office.   It was put to the transport administrator that the handwritten note includes   the written statement from the Warehouse Assistant and the complainant’s   statement below; she replied that she may have been incorrect in saying that   the complainant had written the statement in the office. She had seen the   complainant use his phone. It was put to the transport administrator that   there had been a conversation between them about the incident but that she   had never read out the statement to the complainant; she replied that this   was not true. It was put to the transport administrator that in his   statement, the transport supervisor did not recall her reading out her   statement; she replied that she did read out the statement. It was put to the   transport administrator that her conversation in the afternoon with the   complainant did not happen; she replied that she stands over her statement.   It was put to the transport administrator that this was a fabrication and   there had been no conversation with the complainant in the afternoon and that   the complainant had not known of the contents of her statement; she replied   that the complainant had been in the room and it had happened.

In further cross-examination, the   transport administrator said that the notes were an accurate record. She   asked whether it was relevant that she had said she had forgotten about the   text at the time of the interview. She said that she had read her statement   to both the transport administrator and the complainant. She had a good   relationship with the complainant, who was charismatic and jokey. The comment   in the appeal minutes where the complainant referred to a witch hunt was put   to the transport administrator; she replied that the comment regarding knowing   the complainant’s point of view was not directed at her.

The HR Manager gave evidence and   said that she had been in the role for 11 years. Prior to the incident, there   had been a previous incident between the Warehouse Assistant and another   member of staff where the Warehouse Assistant had been abusive. The   complainant had sought support from HR and she accompanied the complainant to   meet a senior manager. She said to the complainant that the Warehouse   Assistant was out of control and he replied that the Warehouse Assistant   could lose his job. She said that this had been the Warehouse Assistant’s   fault. She was shocked by the complainant’s sympathy for the Warehouse   Assistant, especially as there had been issues in the past with him.

In cross-examination, the HR Manager   accepted that the complainant had 18 years’ service in the warehouse and an   unblemished disciplinary record. It was put to the HR Manager that the   complainant was a loyal person; she said that the complainant liked to be   liked, but had been struggling in the role. She accepted that he was loyal.   It was put to the HR Manager that the complainant was no friend of the   Warehouse Assistant, including when he had been a witness for the respondent   in defending personal injury proceedings against the respondent taken by the   Warehouse Assistant. It was put to the HR Manager that there had been an   altercation in the Four Courts where the Warehouse Assistant had abused the   complainant and that the Warehouse Assistant was a troublesome employee. The   HR Manager replied that she thought that the complainant had originally found   the Warehouse Assistant a job. It was put to the HR Manager that the   statement a year before had been a throw-away comment; she replied that she   was shocked at the complainant’s comment at this time. It was put to the HR   Manager that the complainant was not letting the Warehouse Assistant away with   it; she replied that he was and she was surprised. She thought that the   complainant had said the same thing to her a year before as he had to the   transport administrator on the 25^th August 2016. There had been no   formal complaint against the Warehouse Assistant so nothing happened. It was   put to the HR Manager that there had been a conversation between the   complainant and the newly appointed Distribution Manager, where the   complainant declined a new role. She replied that the complainant had had a   conversation with the Operations Manager where the complainant had said he   was not warehouse manager.

In re-direction, the HR Manager said   that the complainant had raised on numerous occasions that he wanted to   change roles. He had said that he was not the warehouse manager. They had   discussed salary for the new, less senior role.

The Head of Finance outlined that he   issued the letter of dismissal on the 22^nd September 2016 and   confirmed that he had only spoken to the complainant. In cross-examination,   the Head of Finance confirmed that he had not spoken to the transport   administrator as he had her comprehensive statement. He could not understand   why the transport administrator would make it up. If there were disparities   in her statement such as whether she had read out the statement or sent the   text, they were not material. The key issue was whether the conversation at   happened at all. The Head of Finance was asked that as complainant’s   statement was also clear and comprehensive, why had he only spoken to the   complainant. It was put to the Head of Finance that he had not spoken to the   transport administrator despite the disparities; he replied that he had no reason   to disbelieve her statement. It was put to the Head of Finance that he simply   believed the transport administrator’s statement; he replied that he had   spoken to the investigator in the presence of the HR Manager. He wanted   clarification of the statements, for example that of the transport   administrator. He was asking whether more had been said then was recorded. It   was put to the Head of Finance that he had wanted the complainant to prove a   negative; he replied that he concluded that the complainant was seeking to   protect colleagues and could not explain why the transport administrator   would put herself through this. It was put to the Head of Finance that the   complainant, as a loyal employee, should have been given the benefit of the   doubt. The Head of Finance said that he had not known that the complainant   had been a witness for the respondent in personal injury proceedings taken by   the Warehouse Assistant. He had spoken with the Managing Director prior to   making the decision to dismiss the complainant. He had told the Managing   Director that he was going to dismiss the complainant and he replied “if   that’s your decision.” The Head of Finance said that somebody had told him   about the changed role but he did not know who. It may have been through HR   as an alternative to dismissal. He said that it was not acceptable to keep   the complainant as a manager. The Head of Finance was asked what   consideration had been given to alternatives such as demotion or warning; he   replied that his decision had been to dismiss the complainant. He said that   it was not possible to pursue mediation because of what the transport   administrator had said in her statement.

In further cross-examination, the   Head of Finance said that he had asked the investigator about the statement   made by the transport administrator, in particular the text messages as he   was confused. He asked when they had been sent. He confirmed that he was   aware of the inconsistencies in the initial statement of the transport   administrator and that the inconsistencies had led to his confusion. He had   not been aware of the differences between the complainant and the transport   administrator about where the statements were recorded and did not think that   this was relevant. He had not asked the investigator who she had believed.

The Managing Director gave evidence.   He heard the complainant’s appeal and that they had witnesses available to   participate in the appeal, including the complainant, the transport   administrator and the transport supervisor. In cross-examination, the   Managing Director confirmed that he was aware of the conversation between the   complainant and the Operations Manager regarding his standing down. He had   not been aware of the status of these discussions. The Head of Finance had   advised him of his decision to dismiss the complainant on the grounds of   gross misconduct. The Managing Director only acknowledged this and did not   tell the Head of Finance about his discussions with the Operations Manager   about the complainant’s changed role. The inconsistencies raised by the   complainant regarding the transport administrator’s statement only related to   the text messages. He confirmed he received all the documentation on hearing   the appeal and was aware of other inconsistencies. This included the   statement issue and he knew why the transport administrator could have   thought that the complainant had written the statement in the office. He said   that the appeal hearing was to give both he and the complainant the   opportunity to ask questions of the transport administrator. It was put to   the Managing Director that no benefit of the doubt was given to the   complainant; he replied that there was no witness to support either party and   he believed that the respondent had looked at all the information. The   complainant only asked for the transport administrator to come into the   appeal hearing and not the other witnesses. It was his decision to dismiss   the complainant and to offer an alternative role, as a reflection of loyalty.  

In closing comments, the respondent   submitted that fair procedures had been applied. The question was whether the   employer was entitled to conclude that the gross misconduct had occurred. An   employer is entitled to prefer one witness’s evidence over another. While   this was not a criminal trial, it was like a jury preferring one person’s   evidence over another. There had been a breach of trust and confidence by the   complainant and on the balance of probabilities, the respondent was entitled   to make the finding of gross misconduct. It was submitted that the offer of   another job was relevant when considering mitigation.

The complainant outlined that he   worked for the respondent for 18 years and had initially looked after five   colleagues as warehouse manager. He moved warehouse after his employer was   bought over by the respondent. He did various roles and the Operations   Manager came to be the warehouse manager. The complainant had 12 reports and   later took on a warehouse manager role at a named location for a period of   eight months, where he had 22 reports. He had been a witness in the personal   injury proceedings, which came to court in 2015 and caught a senior member of   staff pilfering. He described the Warehouse Assistant as a thorn in the side   and while he helped him, their relationship was that of work colleagues and   not friends. The complainant said that he tried to get on with everyone.

The complainant said that in June   2016, he had spoken with the Operations Manager on numerous occasions about   his stress and said that he could not do his job any more. They had moved   premises and six companies had been brought together. It was a difficult,   stressful time and there were headaches across the board spread over the two   warehouses. He and the Operations Manager had a conversation about the   complainant moving jobs and the Operations Manager got a consultant to help   with the logistics. The end result was that the complainant stayed put. He   was aware that the new Distribution Manager coming in to the warehouse, but   he did not know him. At the start, the Distribution Manager was finding his   feet and they had an ‘alright’ relationship. The Distribution Manager asked   the complainant into his office where he told the complainant that he was not   the right fit. He commented that the complainant was fantastic with customers   and suggested the complainant do a new role. The respondent had a much higher   footfall on the retail end, about 90 a day. The Distribution Manager said   that he would bring in his own staff and that he had been round the block.   The complainant told the Distribution Manager what his salary was and that   this was not a problem. At a later meeting, they discussed his salary again   and the Distribution Manager offered €35,000. The complainant replied that he   was working 7am to 7pm and that he was worth more. The Distribution Manager   said he would come back to him. At the third meeting, in mid-August, the   complainant accepted the offer of €40,000.

In respect of the incident of the 25^th   August 2016, the complainant said he had been in the office when the IT   worker came in. The Warehouse Assistant was also in the office and the IT   worker pointed at the Warehouse Assistant and said “what’s your name”. The   Warehouse Assistant then left the room. The complainant went straight to the   Distribution Manager and the Operations Manager about the incident. The   Distribution Manager told him to go and get statements from those in the   office. He did this, where the transport supervisor said he would not give   one and the transport administrator said she would. The complainant said that   he had taken many statements, sometimes three per week, on issues such as   health and safety. The complainant brought the Warehouse Assistant into the   office and as he is illiterate, wrote out the statement for him. A named   colleague happened to be in the room. The complainant then added his   statement and gave the page to Distribution Manager. Later that day, the   complainant, the transport supervisor and the transport administrator had   chit chat over the event. The transport administrator did not read out her   statement and the complainant did not read it. This was the end of the   complainant’s involvement in the investigation. The complainant denied asking   the transport administrator to change her statement and commented that the   office was a busy, public place. He was not sure whether he had said good bye   to the transport administrator that day. He was not asked to do anything else   regarding the incident. The Distribution Manager later said to the   complainant that he should change his statement, but he did not know what he   meant. He later reported this to HR. The complainant received a text message from   the transport administrator on the 25^th August 2016 to say that   she did not want to be part of this witch hunt. He replied that he would be a   support for her.

The complainant outlined that the   transport supervisor had told him that there was something coming down the   track from the statement made by the transport administrator. The first he   officially knew was the day he was suspended. While the complainant was in   the warehouse, the HR Manager and the Distribution Manager handed him a   letter to inform him of his suspension. Disciplinary matters usually took   place in a quieter room. The complainant said that he had not had a private   meeting with the transport administrator and he consistently denied this   allegation. In respect of the offer of a new job, the complainant described   this as terrible as the finding of gross misconduct was hard to take. He felt   that he had earned the front of house role. He had not been treated fairly   and that the respondent had believed someone over him, especially someone new   to the company.

The complainant outlined that he has   been out of work since October 2016 and commenced looking for employment in   November. He had to sign on and there was controversy over the circumstances   of his dismissal. He initially looked for warehouse manager roles and later   for warehouse operator roles. He outlined that he has obtained a new job at a   named location as warehouse operator, on a salary of €22,000 per year.

In cross-examination, the   complainant said when he was handed the letter of suspension by the HR   Manager, he asked what this was for, and she replied “you know”. It was put   to the complainant that he had been allowed to put his case at all stages; he   said that he had not been allowed to do so by the Managing Director. The   differences in the statements were put to the complainant, including his   omission of the words “I will not be spoken to like that” and a reference to   a string of expletives; the complainant said that he only heard “what’s his   name” and he did not hear the other words. The complainant did not agree that   the transport administrator had read out her statement to him. It was put to   the complainant that on hearing her statement, he now had a motivation to get   her to change her statement; the complainant did not agree with this. The   complainant was asked whether someone else should have helped the Warehouse   Assistant with his statement; he replied that he always did statements for   warehouse staff. He was asked what the transport administrator’s motivation   could be; he replied that he did not know and denied that he had said the   things attributed to him. The complainant accepted if what the transport   administrator had said in her statement was true that it was a serious matter   and that someone should be disciplined for it. The complainant said that the Distribution   Manager had asked whether this was all he had to say in the statement and did   not ask him to change it. The complainant described the incident as taking   place at 3 or 3.30pm, at a time when it was busy with drivers returning.

In closing comments, the complainant   submitted that fair procedures had not been followed, for example the Head of   Finance had consulted with someone about his decision. The disciplinary   process had not established the veracity of the statement made by the   transport administrator. Insufficient account had been taken of the   complainant’s 18 years’ service. The respondent had preferred the transport   administrator’s account despite the inconsistencies and the complainant had   been asked to prove a negative. No consideration had been given to why the   complainant would do as alleged. The past conversation with the HR Manager   was irrelevant. The respondent had reached a finding of gross misconduct, yet   made the offer of a new role. It was not realistic for the complainant to   take up the role when the finding of gross misconduct had been made. The   backdrop to this case was that the Distribution Manager wanted the   complainant to move roles.

The complainant’s dismissal stems   from the events of the 25^th August 2016. They first arose from a   verbal confrontation between two members of staff, referred to above as the   Warehouse Assistant and the IT worker. They both submitted statements   following the incident. The statement submitted by the IT worker is more   detailed and accuses the Warehouse Assistant of swearing at him. The   statement of the Warehouse Assistant was transcribed by the complainant. It   makes no reference to swearing. The complainant said that he was asked to   take the statement by the Distribution Manager and that he regularly took   statements from staff. The complainant refers to the Warehouse Assistant   being illiterate and the respondent does not appear to dispute this. Three   witnesses submitted statements to the respondent of what they saw and heard.   They are short statements. The statement of the complainant and the Warehouse   Supervisor differ from that of the transport administrator as only the latter   statement refers to the Warehouse Assistant swearing in an aggressive manner,   corroborating the statement of the IT worker. The respondent outlined that   the Warehouse Assistant received a warning following its investigation of the   morning incident.

The events leading to the   complainant’s dismissal arise from the allegation made by the transport administrator   that the complainant approached her at around 3.30pm on the afternoon of the   25^th August 2016 to try to persuade her to change her statement.   She outlines that this made her very upset and concerned. The complainant   flatly denies that this took place. Ultimately, the respondent was satisfied   that the allegation was true and that it constituted gross misconduct. There   was controversy regarding what the complainant described as inconsistencies   and the respondent as misunderstandings. They include whether there was an   inconsistency in the statement of the transport administrator regarding   whether she had texted the complainant and whether he had replied indicating   his support for her. There was also a conflict in evidence as to whether the   transport administrator read out her statement to the complainant and the   transport supervisor, or whether they had only chatted about the earlier   incident. This is significant as the complainant denies knowing the contents   of the statement submitted by the transport administrator.

At the heart of this case is the   sharp conflict of fact regarding the events of the afternoon of the 25^th   August 2016. The transport administrator asserts that the complainant   approached her in a 1-1 meeting to ask her to change her statement. The   complainant denies this and asserts that there was no such meeting. Both the   transport administrator and the complainant gave their conflicting accounts   at the adjudication, subject to cross-examination. It goes without saying   that it is not for the adjudication to choose between one or other of the   conflicting accounts. Its role is to assess whether the respondent had   reasonable grounds to conclude that the act of gross misconduct occurred.

The respondent faced a predicament   in addressing two such conflicting accounts. The question of whether the   respondent had reasonable grounds for the subsequent dismissal stem from its   assessment of the evidence before it, including the inferences it made from   the evidence and what corroboration it relied upon. It is clear from the   investigation report and the evidence of the respondent witnesses that the   respondent placed great significance on the corroboration of a conversation   between the complainant and the HR Manager a year before where the complainant   had expressed a concern that the Warehouse Assistant might lose his job. The   respondent also places weight on the inference drawn from what motivation could   the transport administrator have to make a false allegation against the   complainant. The investigation report refers to both the corroboration of the   HR Manager from the year before and the inference drawn from a lack of   motive. The disciplinary outcome letter refers only to a lack of motive on   the part of the transport administrator. Following the appeal hearing, the   Managing Director confirmed the disciplinary outcome.

Where an employer faces such   conflicting accounts of an event, unless there is something implausible about   one statement, it is necessary to seek out corroboration of one or the other   account to reach the position where it has reasonable grounds. In some cases,   this will involve witness statements or objective sources such as text   messages. In this case, the respondent relied on corroboration provided in an   unrelated and earlier statement made by the complainant about the Warehouse   Assistant. This was unsatisfactory because the statement was made so long   before the 25^th August 2016 and related to an entirely different   matter. Furthermore, the respondent did not consider corroboration that went   the other way, for example the evidence presented at the adjudication (and   not contradicted by the respondent) that the complainant had given evidence   for the respondent in High Court PI proceedings against the Warehouse   Assistant.

As outlined above, it is not my role   to prefer one account over the other. The version of events presented by the   transport administrator could be correct. After all, the complainant had   texted to offer his support (in reply to her text) and perhaps his calling to   the office at 3.30pm was giving this support. The version of events presented   by the complainant could be correct. He gathered and submitted statements   regarding the morning confrontation and the disciplinary investigation   involving the Warehouse Assistant was dealt with in due course.

As submitted by the complainant, the   respondent, in particular at the disciplinary and appeal stages, asked the complainant   to prove a negative, i.e. that the conversation had not taken place. It   required the complainant to show that the transport administrator had a   motive to make an untrue allegation. Where he could not do so, it concluded   that the transport administrator lacked any such motive and that it was   entitled to take the allegation as true. While it was significant that the   transport administrator was new to the company and gave an internally   coherent account of the conversation with the complainant, it has not   demonstrated that the lack of a motive was reasonable grounds to conclude   that the event of gross misconduct occurred. I reach this finding for the   following reasons. There was significant conflict between the transport   supervisor and the transport administrator over whether she had read out her   statement at the earlier meeting. Like much of what that transport supervisor   is reported as saying, he was equivocal about his recollection of events and   careful not to contradict the evidence of any other witness. Moreover, I note   that the respondent did not interview other potential witnesses in the   warehouse to see whether they saw the conversation between the transportation   administrator and the complainant, or whether they observed either of them   around the warehouse between 3 and 3.30pm. This is a busy warehouse at a busy   time of day. This points to an unresolved inconsistency and incomplete   evidence before the respondent and following which it was not reasonable for   take the lack of motivation as grounds to accept the allegation as true.

I repeat that my role is not to make   findings whether the allegation was true or not true. In assessing the motive   of the transport administrator, it fell on the respondent to consider and to   discount other motives. This arises as it did not have other evidence to   corroborate one version over the other and due to the inconsistencies. One can   conceive other possible motives (for example, conceivably, a mistaken account   that could not be resiled from or, conceivably, an instruction from a senior   manager). Before concluding that the lack of a motive, on its own, was   reasonable grounds for dismissal, the respondent should have considered other   possible motives and this arises because of the inconsistencies and the lack   of corroboration.

For the reasons outlined above, the   respondent’s dismissal of the complainant was unfair. In respect of the   warehouse assistant role, I note that the respondent was not proposing this   as a demotion of the complainant, but that he would be dismissed as warehouse   manager on grounds of gross misconduct. It proposed that he be re-employed in   the warehouse assistant role, receiving about half his salary. I note that   complainant’s concerns that the dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct   would remain in place. I agree that this should not been taken in assessing   mitigation. It may have been different had the respondent proposed demotion   instead of dismissal as the outcome of the disciplinary process.

In respect of mitigation, the   complainant submits documentary evidence of seeking 45 roles as warehouse   manager or warehouse operative. He found alternative employment in April 2017   as warehouse operator on a salary of €22,000 per year. The complainant is   entitled to recover for the financial loss he incurred between the date of   dismissal and obtaining new employment. This is a period of 26 weeks. The   complainant was on salary of €46,400. While he had agreed to move to a   front-of-house role on a salary of €40,000, this had not been implemented by   the time of his dismissal. Taking his salary at €46,400, his loss is €23,200.   He is also entitled to recover for ongoing loss of salary. In assessing this,   I note that the complainant has a great deal of experience, including   management experience, in the logistics sector. This experience and his   acknowledged affable personality means that he is likely to progress in this new   role, or to find a more senior role. I, therefore, award an additional   €10,000 for ongoing loss of salary. The sum of these two amounts is €33,200.

In respect of the complaint made   pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, I find that the   complaint is well-founded. I find that the respondent has not demonstrated   that the complainant committed an act of misconduct to disentitle him to   statutory notice. The complainant was employed by the respondent for 18   years, and it follows that he is entitled to the statutory notice period of eight   weeks. Taking his salary at €46,400 per annum, the redress is €7,138.

CA-00008232-001

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.

Pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals   Act, I find that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded and the   respondent shall pay to the complainant €33,200 as redress for the unfair   dismissal.

CA-00008232-002

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

I   find that the complainant made pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of   Employment Act is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the   complainant redress of €7,138.

Unfair Dismissals Act

Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act