Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Painter

Vehicle Accident Repairer

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00008265-001

18/11/2016

The complainant was employed as a painter in a vehicle accident repair business operated by the respondent. Employment commenced on 20 October 2013 and was terminated on 19 June 2016. The complainant worked part-time and gross pay was €7,920.00 per annum. The complainant’s employment terminated following an accident at work and the complainant went out sick.

The complainant injured his foot at work due to a spillage.

The complainant got sick certificates from his doctor but the respondent would not pay him.

There were issues with Social Welfare regarding PRSI payments.

When he again approached the respondent he was told he was being let go and to hand back the keys.

The complainant went out sick after a spillage at work.

The complainant asked him for money while he was out sick but the respondent refused as he did not know how long the complainant would be absent.

The complainant had a spare set of keys belonging to work and the respondent asked him to return them.

After a few weeks the complainant again approached him for money and when the respondent refused the complainant stormed off and did not turn up for work again.

The complainant was not dismissed.

The first issue to be remarked upon is the absolute absence of paperwork. The respondent accepted that there was no contract issued, no pay slips and obviously nothing documented as regards the matters in dispute.

On 5 June 2016 there was a chemical spill in the workplace which resulted in an injury to the complainant’s foot. According to the complainant he requested the owner to give him a lift but eventually made his own way to the doctor who certified him as unfit for work.   It would appear that the complainant sought payment from the respondent but that this was refused.   The respondent stated that the complainant requested details of the workplace insurance but the complainant denied this and said that he had never made a claim in regard to his injury.

The respondent then asked the complainant to return a spare set of keys for the workplace as he decided that he did not want the complainant to have these whilst he was out.   The complainant sent them back through his brother. The complainant stated that in the meantime he was experiencing problems in getting payments from the Social Welfare office because of issues with his PRSI payments. The complainant again approached the respondent and requested a payment and the respondent again refused on the basis that he was not due any money.   Exactly what occurred is a matter of dispute between the parties. The respondent contends that the complainant asked him for money as he was going to buy a car and that when he refused the complainant stormed off and never subsequently attended the workplace. The complainant stated that the respondent told him to claim money from Social Welfare and then informed him that he was letting him go as the respondent had got legal advice that he had to protect himself. The complainant said that he had never received a P45 form and that eventually he had received payments from Social Welfare.   The complainant had commenced employment in another job on 5 July 2016.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977, states:

Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

The issue here is that the respondent claims that the complainant stormed out of a meeting and absented himself from work and that there was no dismissal. The complainant says that the respondent specifically informed him that he was letting him go. An employer, in the situation outlined by the respondent, would be expected to have had some contact with an employee who had gone absent in such circumstances and to advise them that a continuation of such absence could place their employment in jeopardy. Evidence in writing to this effect would be of even greater assistance. There was no evidence offered that the complainant at any stage said that he was resigning. Yet the respondent did not contest that the date of termination was 19 June 2016.   Section 6(7) of the Act states:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so –

(a)    To the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal…

On the balance of probabilities, having regard to the evidence before me, I accept that the complainant was dismissed and that there were no substantial grounds justifying that dismissal. In addition, there was a complete absence of procedures in relation to the actions of the respondent in this matter.   I therefore find that the dismissal was unfair.

Complaint No. CA-00008265-001:

This is a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015. For the reasons stated above I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. The complainant stated that he had started in a new job on 5 July 2016 and had subsequently changed employment. The complainant further stated at the hearing that the employment was sporadic in nature. The complainant did not provide any further evidence regarding this matter. Having regard to all the circumstances I order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €1,500.00 as compensation in this regard.