ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009787

Parties:

 Complainant      Anonymised Parties      Respondent

A Sales Manager                                        A Printing Company  

Representatives

Marc Fitzgibbon Lavelle Solicitors                     Michael Kennedy Irish Insolvency Liquidations

Complaint(s):

ActComplaint/Dispute        Reference No.        Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00012826-001 27/07/2017 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00012826-002 27/07/2017 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00012826-003 27/07/2017 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00012826-004 27/07/2017 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00012826-005 27/07/2017 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00012826-006 27/07/2017 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00012826-007 27/07/2017 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00012826-008 27/07/2017  

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/11/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.  

Background:

The Complainant commenced employment as a Sales Manager/Digital Print finisher with the Respondent, a printing company, in February 2012.   His gross monthly pay was €2,103.58 per month. The Complainant's employment with the Respondent ended on 24th March 2017. A Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 27th July 2017.  

CA-00012826-001 Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977:

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. A written submission was received from the Respondent in advance of the hearing in which the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was dismissed for Gross Misconduct.  

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant provided a written submission which was supported by oral evidence. The Complainant submitted that on 16th March 2017 he had a verbal altercation with one of the owners of the company, Mr A, relating to a printing job. During the altercation, the Complainant stated that Mr A became abusive towards him, calling him, "arrogant, lazy and ignorant." On Tuesday 21st March the Complainant returned to work and being approached by another owner, Ms B, who told him to attend a meeting scheduled for later in the day in which he would be issued with an official warning. The meeting took place and other issues were brought up including the Complainant's timekeeping. Reference was made to a discussion the Complainant had some time previously with Mr A, at which the retirement of the Complainant had been discussed. Things became heated and the meeting ended. The Complainant was called to a meeting on Thursday 23rd March at which he was asked if he had reconsidered his position in relation to his timekeeping. When the Complainant said he did not think changing his hours of work would be in the best interests of the company, he alleges that Ms B responded by saying, "you will be sacked", and the meeting ended. The Complainant was called to a meeting on Friday 24th March where Ms B asked him to write out a letter of resignation. The Complainant said he would think over the matter but Ms B persisted and asked him again to write a letter of resignation, which he refused. When he refused Ms B told him that he was fired and that he was to hand back his company keys and that he would be escorted off the premises. The Complainant left the premises and was subsequently paid his salary to the end of March 2017. The Complainant submits that he was unfairly dismissed for a number of reasons including; he was not afforded due process of fair procedures; the Complainant made a finding of misconduct against the Complainant before it met with him on Tuesday 21st March; the Respondent did not carry out an investigation into the alleged allegations that had been made against the Complainant; the complaint was not made aware of the allegations made against him and thus did not have fair opportunity to respond; the Respondent did not comply with its own written Disciplinary Policy; the Complainant was not offered an appeal the decision to dismiss him; the reason given for the Complainant's dismissal did not give rise to an entitlement to dismiss him for gross misconduct.    

Findings and Conclusions:

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I am satisfied, for the reasons outlined above, that this was an unfair dismissal. The Complainant set up his own business in April 2017 in an attempt to mitigate his loss, however he only has one client. His monthly income is less, by approximately €2,100 per month, than it was when he was employed by the Respondent, so his approximate loss since his dismissal is €12,600 (6 months loss).     Taking a notice payment of one month into account the Complainant's loss amounts to €10,500.    

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act. The complaint is upheld. The Respondent is to pay the Complainant a sum of €10,500 within six weeks of the date of this Decision.  

CA-00012826-002 Complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973:

Summary of Complainant's Case

The Complainant submits that he was summarily dismissed and not given any notice of termination. His contractual Notice as per his contract of employment was one month. The Complainant believes he is entitled to one month's pay under this claim in the gross sum of €2,100.

Summary of Respondent's Case

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions

The evidence before me confirms that the Respondent   dismissed the Complainant with immediate effect and did so without adhering   to its obligations under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973   which under Section 4 requires four weeks’ notice if the employee has been in the   continuous service of his employer for five years or more.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. In accordance with Section 4 of the Minimum Notice   and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 I find that the Complainant was entitled to four weeks’ notice as he had over 5 years’ service at the time of his   dismissal.   In accordance with Section 12(1) of the Act I direct that the Respondent pay   the Complainant compensation of €2,100 amounting to four weeks' pay within   42 days of the date of this decision, subject   to any lawful deductions.  

CA-00012826-003- withdrawn on the day.

CA-00012826-004- withdrawn on the day.

CA-00012826-005- withdrawn on the day.

CA-00012826-006- withdrawn on the day.

CA-00012826-007- withdrawn on the day.

CA-00012826-008- complaint made under the Organisation of working Time Act, 1997:

Complainant's Case

The Complainant submitted that he was owed payment for each of two Public Holidays which fell on 14th and 17th April 2017.

Respondent's Case

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions

The two Public holidays in question fell during the Complainant's notice period. As I have found in favour of the Complainant in relation to the payment of notice this claim is resolved.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. As the two Public Holidays regarding which this complaint was made are now covered by the Decision in CA-00012826 above, no action is required.

Dated:   23rd January 2018          Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Key Words: Summary dismissal, fair process, notice