ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008644
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | A Worker | A Construction Company |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00011264-001 | 11/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 or such other act as may be referred to in the 2015 Act, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.
The Worker herein has referred a matter for dispute resolution under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] and the referral has been made within six months of the initial circumstances of the relevant dispute.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The worker commenced employment with the respondent on the 29th September, 2016. His contract of employment placed him on a three month probationary period. After the three months he was informed that he was being kept on. He continued to carry out his duties, until, out of the blue he was called into the office on the 17th February, 2017 by one of the Managing Directors. The MD said “I don’t think you like your job here so we have decided to let you go” He said he would pay him what he was owed and one further week, as a form of compensation. This was the workers first job since leaving college. He was so shocked that he couldn’t think of anything to say. He just packed up his things and left. The worker secured employment with another construction company one month later. His annual pay is € 2,000 more than with the respondent. He is happy there and is getting on very well.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No Appearance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The worker in this matter, following a probationary period was kept on in employment. He had an excellent disciplinary record. Without notice or warning he was called into the office of the Managing Director on the 17th February, 2017 and was dismissed. The worker’s contract of employment clearly sets out a disciplinary procedure. There was no attempt by the respondent to follow it. The complainant was not given an opportunity to state is case, he was not told the reasons that led the respondent to form the opinion he wasn’t happy there. He was not given a right of appeal. It is on that basis that I find he was unfairly dismissed
|
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the respondent pay to the worker the sum of € 2,000.00
|
Dated: 14th September 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal. Lack of Procedures. |