ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007525

Parties:

Complainant                    Anonymised Parties               Respondent

A leisure centre manager                                           A hotel leisure centre  

Representatives None                   None

Dispute:

ActDispute       Reference No.       Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 CA-00010197-001 13/03/2017  

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/08/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 13th March 2017, the complainant referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Act pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. The dispute was scheduled for adjudication on the 30th August 2017.   At the outset of the adjudication, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue of the adjudication. Having been satisfied of this, and waited some time to accommodate a late arrival, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.   In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The complainant worked for the respondent between the 6th June 2016 and the 7th February 2017. He was paid €461.76 gross per week. He claims that his employment was ended unfairly.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant commenced in employment with the respondent on the 6th June 2016 and this came to an end on the 7th February 2017. He had heard from a colleague that he was being dismissed, but went to work the following day. He did a busy morning class and later met the new manager. The owner joined them and said to the complainant that the manager was the “new man”. The complainant asked whether the owner wanted him to leave and the owner replied “yes”. The complainant asked “why?’ and the owner replied that there was no reason.   The complainant stated that he was owed two weeks’ wages and commission of €76. He commented that the respondent appears to have mixed up the conversation with him and the one with his colleague. The complainant said that it had been humiliating to have to go to work when he knew he was being fired. There had been no due process. In the meeting with a named HR consultant, the HR consultant refused to calculate an agreed amount of commission. The complainant was now an assistant manager in facility in a Leinster town.   The complainant said that he had received a phone call from a colleague to say that he would be fired on going to work the next day. He went to work as he did not want to walk out on a job.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not attend the adjudication and did not make submissions in relation to the dispute. The respondent consented to the Industrial Relations dispute being heard.

Findings and Conclusions:

It is well settled that an employer is obliged to apply its own disciplinary or dismissal procedure in terminating an employee’s employment, including during a period of probation or before the employee falls within the scope of the Unfair Dismissals Act (see Irish Postmasters Union -v- A Worker AD 115). The respondent did not submit a disciplinary, performance management or a dismissal policy applicable in this case. The complainant asked for the reason he was being dismissed and no explanation was provided. He learnt of his pending dismissal from a colleague, who was also dismissed. He attended work even after knowing he was to be dismissed. It follows that the dismissal was unfair.   In assessing redress, I take account of the losses arising from the dismissal. I recommend that the respondent pay redress of €2,500 to the complainant.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.   CA-00010197-001 I find that the dispute referred by the complainant pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act is well-founded and the respondent shall pay redress to the complainant of €2,500.  

Dated:   18th January 2018  

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Key Words: Industrial Relations Act Irish Postmasters Union -v- A Worker AD 115