Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

Logistics company

Representatives

Self- represented

Did not attend

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00012047-001

21/06/2017

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 8/11/2015 as a supervisor in a logistics department.

She worked a 39-hour week, Monday – Friday and occasionally Saturday. She was paid €9.15 per hour on a weekly basis.

She went on certified sick leave on 20 January 2016.

She contends that she was unfairly dismissed.

She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 21/6/17.

The correct respondent’s name and details were provided by the liquidator.

The hearing was re-scheduled for 5/2/2018. Neither the complainant nor the liquidator turned up though they were duly notified.

Oral evidence submitted by complainant at first scheduled hearing on 20/12/18.

The complainant worked as a sorter and distributor of goods to hotels and hospitals in the respondent’s company in a supervisory capacity.

She has been attending a doctor for anxiety since January 2016. She has been in receipt of disability benefit from 20 January 2016 and will be up to 31 December 2017. She submitted medical certificates on 21 January 2016 and each month thereafter to her supervisor. She requested her P 60 from the respondent in January 2017.The respondent’s payroll department sent her an email on 20 February 2017 stating that “she was not employed at 31 January 2016”. She received her P45 on 20 February 2017.

In May 2017 the supervisor told her to email her medical certificates to the respondent company. The complainant did this in May 2017 but never heard anything from the respondent from that date.

On 20 December 2017 she stated that she is 7 and half months pregnant.

Her complaint of unfair dismissal is based on the fact that the respondent never advised her of plans to dismiss her and failed to respond to her efforts to contact them.

She did not produce evidence of attempting to mitigate her loss stating that employers do not wish to employ a pregnant woman. Her disability benefit will cease on 31 December 2017 as she has been on same for 2 years.

In July 2017 the named respondent advised that they were not the correct respondent. They named the correct respondent but stated that the Liquidator had assumed all responsibility for the respondent and that all correspondence should be addressed to him.

The liquidator did not attend the hearing due to a delay in the notification to him. A further opportunity was presented to him to give evidence at a hearing on the 5/2/18. He did not attend.

I am satisfied that he was duly notified of the details of this hearing.

I am satisfied that the liquidator was on notice of the February 2018 hearing.

On the basis of the uncontested evidence, tendered at the hearing on the 20 December, I find that the complainant went on extended sick leave after 11 weeks of employment with the respondent.

I find that the complainant’s employment was terminated on 18/2/18 by means of issuing her with her P45. The termination was devoid of any process. There was no indication, advance notification, investigation, disciplinary procedure or appeal provided to the complainant. The limited nature of the complainant’s employment does not exempt the respondent from the obligation to employ fair procedures. In these circumstances and on the uncontested evidence tendered, I find that there is merit in this complaint.

The complainant was on disability benefit up to the date of the first scheduled hearing on 20 December 2017 and as she was unfit to work was thus unable to mitigate her loss.

I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant €744 which represents two weeks wages

I find that there is merit in the complaint. I recommend that the respondent pay the sum of €744 to the complainant.

Unfair dismissal; absence of procedures