Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Sign Holder

A Catering Company

Representatives

Donal Holohan, Solicitor of Maguire McClafferty, Solicitors

Self-Represented. Respondent Owner/Manager

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-00010749-001

10/04/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00010749-002

10/04/2017

CA-00010749-001

- UD 1977, Act Claim

The complainant called to his place of work on the 22nd November 2016, presented a letter from his GP, stated that he could not work and was going on sick leave.

Shortly afterwards, a day or two later, he was given his P45 by the Respondent. He took this to mean that his employment had ended. He was denied all fair procedures and natural justice.

CA-00010749

- Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant had never received a Contract or a Written statement of his Terms and Conditions of Employment.

CA-00010749-001 - UD Act Claim

On the 22nd of November, the Complainant arrived at work in a very excited state, told his employer that he was medically unfit and could not work. He went home on sick leave. The following day he returned and asked for his P45. This was provided shortly afterwards (a day or two) by the Respondent’s Accountants. The Respondent maintained that he had suggested to the Complainant that he take a few days off to rest and then, if medically fit, come back to work rather than get a P45.

Approximately a week later the Complainant again came to the business premises. He had a Social Welfare disability /Injury claim form and he requested the Respondent to sign it. The Respondent refused as he was not aware of any accident.

Later that month the Complainant asked the Respondent for his job back but “not on the books”. The Respondent refused to comply with his request. The Respondent had always found the Complainant to be a good reliable worker and would happily have taken him back but only as a proper tax compliant employee.

CA-00010749-001 - UD Act 1977 claim

The Complainant was employed at the very margins of paid employment vis a via Social Welfare unemployment and support payments. In his employment, he had worked 20 hours a week at the then minimum wage of €9.15. He supplemented his Income with the Family Income Supplement.

As regards the incidents on the 22nd November 2016 (day one) the Complainant’s oral evidence detailing the time gaps between getting the initial GP Cert in the Berkley Clinic, going to the place off work and getting back to the Mater Hospital for an X Ray -all by push bicycle was incredible especially for a person supposed to be ill.

The request for the P45 was allegedly at the request of the Department of Social Welfare offices. In the manner described I found this hard to understand.

The latter requests to come back to work but “off the books” was equally hard to understand.

All told the entire story presented simply did not make any logical sense.

BY comparison the evidence of the Respondent appeared to be a lot more credible but also having a few gaps in explanations.

Having listed to the total evidence and carefully reflected upon it, it appeared to me that the Complainant had got, possibly with some inaccurate advice, completely confused with the nett payment differences between Social Welfare Benefits v/v Paid Employment. The prospect of Disability Benefits for his Medical condition, which was supported by Medical evidence, also exacerbated his confusion.

All told I felt that he had got lost in the Social Welfare systems (all in what was to him a foreign language) and felt that by following one course of action he could possibly make himself financially better off. There was no adequate explanation for asking for his P45 and then seeking to return “off the books”.

In conclusion, I could not see a clear case of Unfair Dismissal as commonly understood. Section 6 of the UD Act, 1977 refers. The situation was not helped by the absence of any regular employment procedures or routines. Notices under Section 14 (1) of the UD Act, 1977 were not available.

On balance, having considered all the oral evidence I came to the view that the Complainant had, for reasons that were still confused, asked for his P45 and had requested to go “off the books”.

It was my final opinion that, lack of employment procedures notwithstanding, an Unfair Dismissal did not take place.

The claim is dismissed.

CA-00010749

- Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

It was acknowledged that he had not received any Contract or T &Cs from the Respondent. Redress is due here for breach of a Statutory Right.

I award the sum of € 183.00 – one week’s wages as compensation.

The proper treatment of this award from a Taxation point of view is a matter for consultation with the Revenue Commissioners.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Decision / Refer to Section 3 above for detailed reasoning.

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

CA-00010749-001

Claim dismissed – no real credible evidence to support the claim.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00010749-002

Claim well founded – Redress/Compensation of €183.00 is awarded