Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Technician

A Manufacturing Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00015671-001

06/11/2017

The worker was employed by the employer as an Implant Parts Clean Technician from 15th August 2016 until his dismissal on 12th June 2017 during the probationary period. The worker was paid €30,000 gross per annum including shift premium. Further information was requested from the worker’s representative and was submitted on 21st June 2018.

The worker contends that he was unfairly dismissed by the employer. The worker stated that he was notified that his probationary period was being extended after the probationary period had expired. He stated that he was subsequently dismissed after the second probationary period had also expired.

The worker stated that he did not receive the employer’s grievance and disciplinary procedures or staff handbook when he commenced his employment and was dismissed on the basis that he had allegedly failed to meet the required standards/targets of his position and for not following procedures. The worker contends that it was impossible to reach his targets as all his work was subject to inspection by his trainer and the breach of procedures related to not wearing the appropriate safety equipment which he claims was an oversight on his part. The worker stated that the real reason for his dismissal was that he had suffered an injury while at work and had lodged a personal injuries claim. The worker stated that he was not permitted the representation of his choice at the appeal of his dismissal which he claims denied him fair procedures and natural justice.

The worker is seeking compensation in relation to the Unfair Dismissal.

The employer did not attend the adjudication hearing. In correspondence dated 10th January 2018, the employer stated that the dispute referred to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) was not a trade dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act, and that it would not be attending the adjudication hearing and would not be bound by any decision that issues in relation to it.

It is unfortunate that the employer did not attend the adjudication hearing to put forward its position on this matter.

Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 as amended by the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides that an employer may object to a dispute being referred to adjudication within 21 days of having been notified of the dispute. The employer’s representative was notified of this by letter dated 9th November 2017. In compliance with the legislation the employer was required to lodge its objection within 21 days of that date. It did not do so. The employer’s representative was notified on 5th December 2017 that the matter was being referred to adjudication as no objection had been received within the statutory timeframe.

On that basis I find that the substantive matter is properly before the adjudications services of the WRC.

The worker was employed into a permanent post that was subject to a six-month probationary period. The worker stated that he was notified shortly after the probationary period had expired that it was being extended on the basis that he was not meeting targets and following procedures. The extended probationary period was to expire on 15th May 2017. The worker contends that after an accident in work on 14th May 2017, the employer decided to dismiss him as he had lodged a personal injuries claim. The worker was notified of the dismissal on 12th June 2017. The worker stated that he had not received grievance and disciplinary procedures or the staff handbook when he commenced his employment and was not allowed to have his chosen representative at the appeal of his dismissal.

Having considered the uncontested submissions of the worker, I am of the view that he was treated unfairly in having the first probationary period extended without notice after it had expired, then being dismissed in circumstances that appear to be linked to his workplace accident and personal injury claim and without being afforded the right to adequate representation at the appeal hearing.

In all of the circumstances of this case, I find that the worker was unfairly dismissed. I recommend that the employer pay the worker €3000 in compensation in that regard. This payment should be discharged to the worker within 42 days of the date of this recommendation.