Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Lorry Driver

A Furniture Company

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00012408-001

11/07/2017

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a lorry driver from June 12th 1997 and earned €510 per week.

The incident which finally gave rise to the decision to terminate the employment arose from attendance by the complainant at a family wedding.

He applied for leave about two weeks before the event and was told that he could not attend the wedding sue to a shortage of drivers on the day in question.

He was told again by the Transport Manager some days before the wedding that he could not have the time off. The company only employs two drivers and the other was off work due to an injury.

However, he took two days off without authorisation.

There was a disciplinary hearing (which was postponed twice to accommodate the complainant) and as he was on a final written warning he was dismissed

The complainant had been the subject of two earlier disciplinary processes; the first on November 25th 2015 which resulted in a first written warning which was not appealed.

The second was on September 29th 2016 which resulted in a final written warning, which also was not appealed.

The complainant confirmed that he had been the subject of the earlier warnings.

In respect of the wedding, he accepts that he was told he could not have the time off but he then raised this with the CEO who indicated that he would check it out.

As he heard nothing further from the CEO he assumed that the leave had been approved and proceeded to take it off.

The complainant’s case turns on the conversation he had with the Managing Director, from which he assumed that he had been given the time off.

The MD gave evidence to the effect that he did say that he would check out the position but it was clear that he gave no indication of an 8intention to reverse the earlier decision.

He did check the position with the Transport Manager who explained the position regarding the other absent driver, but neither of them thought it desirable to confirm the position to the complainant.

However, notwithstanding that there was nothing in the exchange with the MD to indicate that he had reversed the Transport Manager’s original decision, any onus to clarify the situation fell primarily on the complainant. The last position communicated to him had been the refusal to grant time off.

On this point the complainant’s unwillingness to appeal any of the sanctions is surprising; but none more than the final one where the alleged confusion over the final decision represented a reasonable basis for doing so.

However, he failed to appeal.

It is well established that the role of an adjudicator in a case such as this is to consider whether, on the basis of the evidence before it, the respondent acted reasonably, fairly and proportionately having regard to the facts of the matter, the conduct of the process and the sanction imposed.

I find that it did.

For the reasons set out above I do not uphold CA-00012408 and it is dismissed.

Dismissal, appeal.