Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Warehouse Worker.

Distribution Company.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00018735-001

25/04/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00018735-002

25/04/2018

The Complainant says that she was not given a contract of employment outlining her Terms and Conditions of Employment.

She also says that she was dismissed from her employment without due process being afforded to her.

The Complainant says that she was employed by the Respondent company from the 2nd August 2017 until dismissal on the 19th April 2018.

She says that when she started she was advised that she would receive a contract of employment on completion of a 3-month probation period. Her probation ended on the 2nd of November 2017.

She says that on the 19th of April 2018 she received a text from the Respondent, who was in the far east at that point, on business, that he was implementing some changes to the company. He said that she should not return to work (from illness leave) and that he would talk to her on his return.

She says that he sent a registered letter to her on the 23rd April advising that he had had a review of operations while in the far east and that the resultant rationalisation meant that her job was being discontinued.

She says that she had had a number of absences due to illness.

During her last illness she had to absent herself from work for longer than she wanted. The Respondent sent a message to her advising that he would pay her for that week and would speak to her on his return from China.

She said she was concerned about this and sent many messages to the Respondent asking if he intended to dismiss her.

She says that he decided on a rationalisation of the business because of the loss of a significant contract.

When asked why the Complainant was chosen to be dismissed he says that she had more absence than any other employee.

The Respondent says that the Complainant was employed on a week-to-week basis, with no guarantee as to long term work. He said that such was the nature of the business, that employment had to be on this basis.

He said that the Complainant was dismissed before any other employee because of her absences from work.

He says that:

(a)    He accepts that the process used in dismissing the Claimant was not robust and

(b)    He accepts that there was no contract of employment issued as was required.

I find that, in relation to complaint number CA-00018735-001, it is clear that the non-provision of a contract of employment outlining the Terms and Conditions in accordance with Section 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 was breached by the Respondent.

In relation to CA-00018735- 002, I recommend that a procedure is introduced into the Respondent company so that employees know how dismissals are dealt with and how they can engage in the process.

In finding for the Complainant that in relation to CA-00018735-001, I award her 4 weeks pay, in compensation for the breach of this Act by the Respondent. This amounts to €1,585.30.