ADJ-00008282

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Telesales / Administrative Worker

A Food Wholesale Company.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

26/04/2017

1:1     The Claim   concerns an Administrative employee of a Wholesale Foods Company. The Complainant   alleges that she was unfairly dismissed.

As an opening point, she alleges that she had the   employment service (12 months) to qualify for a claim under the Unfair   Dismissals Act, 1977 and sought to re formulate her claim to this effect. A recent   High Court decision in another claim (High   Court [2015 No. 158 J.R.] Anne Marie Ryan v UPC Communication) was cited   in support. It was maintained that at the time of lodging her claim (24^th   April 2017) she was a lay litigant and the High Court decision (5^th   October 2017) was only recently brought to her attention by her latterly   appointed Representative.

1:2     Preliminary Point – Requested change of   Claim from IR Act ,1969 to UD Act,1977.

The claim was clearly lodged under the Industrial Relations   Act on the 26^th April 2017 and acknowledged as same by the   Workplace Relations Commission by letters to the parties on the 22^nd   May 2017. All correspondence to the date of the hearing referred to the Industrial   Relations Act.

I cannot now agree to a change to the claim to reformulate   it as a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977.

The High Court case referred to was, on reflection, I   thought applicable to cases of time limits where an Unfair Dismissal case was   already lodged. I did not think it gave grounds to an Applicant to change   claims from one Act to another.

The Complainant was employed largely on Order processing   in the Respondent’s offices. On the Friday 6^th January 2017, a forceful   disagreement took place between the Complainant and a fellow Office employee   concerning the proper completion/amendment of Orders. This had followed a visit   to the Office from the Managing Director of the Company in relation to   Customer complaints regarding wrong/missed orders.

Matters got heated and the Complainant sought the assistance   of the Office Manager/Director. She, it was alleged, told the Complainant to   “go home” and the matters would be “sorted”. The Complainant had made suggestions   that her fellow employee in the Office was effectively Bullying her. She, the   Office Manager, would call the Complainant on the Monday following, the 9^th   January. On the Monday evening the Complainant received a call from the MD   which clearly implied that she, the Complainant had resigned on the Friday.   In a further call on Tuesday 10^th this was made clear. The Company   believed she had left the employment and they had replaced her. As regards   the Bullying allegations the MD promised a full investigation.

On the 17^th February 2017, the Respondent wrote   to the Complainant maintaining that the Complainant had “walked out and   resigned verbally” on the 6^th January. She was invited to submit   her bullying claim in writing. On the 13^th March 2017, the   Complainant was invited to attend a Disciplinary meeting on the 14^th   March at 17:00 hrs. The Complainant requested that the meeting be deferred,   due to the very short notice and her inability at such short notice to secure   a colleague or Representative. The Respondent sent an E mail at 19:27 on the   14^th March 2017 to the Complainant dismissing her. An appeal was offered,   if lodged within 5 working days. The Complainant lodged an Appeal on the 20^th   March 2017. The Appel hearing never took place and no further contact was   made by the Respondent with the Complainant regarding her dismissal.

The Complainant maintained that her rights under Natural   Justice to fair employment procedures were completely denied and that the   Dismissal was lacking in any correct substance and proportionality.

The Complainant supported her case with extensive copy documentation,   e mails and gave oral evidence in support.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and no evidence   was forthcoming from their side. I was happy that proper notice had been   served on the Respondent.

Having reviewed all the evidence, particularly the written   materials supplied I came to the view that the procedures or more accurately   the lack of procedures employed by the Respondent were, as regards an Unfair   Dismissal case, completely flawed. Apart from the impossible time lines   imposed on the Complainant at earlier stages the non-hearing of the Appeal   following the Dismissal must make this an Unfair Dismissal.

I so find.

My Recommendation is that the Complainant be paid a sum of   8 weeks’ pay (€420 x 8 = €3,360)     ( pay details from payslips   supplied) as Compensation for her unfair Dismissal. I note that she had secured alternative employment   some six 6 weeks post her Dismissal but at a lower rate of pay and for lesser   hours. However, the lump sum award above is deemed to include an element of   compensation (2 weeks’ pay) for Future losses.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary decision /Please refer to Section   4 above for detailed reasoning.

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

Claim of Unfair Dismissal,   under the Industrial Relations Act,1969, is well founded. An award on € 3,360   is made in favour of the Complainant.