Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Maintenance Operative

Building Management company

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-00016892-001

17/01/2018

The Complainant had been engaged as a salaried employee to do Maintenance work on a large student accommodation facility. His employment was terminated without Notice.

I have carefully considered the evidence I have heard herein.

A Director of the Respondent Company (QG) herein has been in contact with the Workplace Relations Commission claiming to be out of the country on the date of the hearing. I am satisfied that the Adjudication Services have advised (by email) the said Director QG that if the Director is seeking a postponement, the Director must provide the WRC with evidence of the fact that the said Director is unavoidably out of the country on the day of the hearing. It is noted that that whilst there is some evidence that the Director was due to leave this jurisdiction on the 13th of June 2018 there is no evidence to support or suggest that the Director continues to be out of the jurisdiction on the date of hearing – 27th of June 2018.

I must further note that QG is not the sole Director and that another Director AQ should also be available. The Complainant has, in the course of his evidence, named at least two other persons who would be well familiar with the workings of the Respondent Company. These are the Financial Accountant - KP and the Director’s own brother in law who it is alleged has taken over the Complainant’s position in the Respondent Company. I have further, had no indication that QG was the only person able to represent the Respondent’s interests.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there were other persons within the Respondent company available to give evidence on behalf of the company and that there has in fact been, what appears to have been, a wilful attempt to avoid having the Complainant’s Employment Rights recognised.

The Complainant herein is a skilled plumber and heating contractor. He had a permanent role in a purpose built student campus situate in Dublin. This is a 90 unit complex capable of providing accommodation for up to 360 students. The Respondent company has the function of managing the entirety of this facility. I have been told that the ownership of the individual units is divided amongst a number of people/entities. The Complainant joined the company on a permanent part-time basis in January of 2016. He worked up to 10 hours per week for a salary of circa 150.00 per week. The Complainant was able to work in his self-employed capacity for the rest of his time and this was sometimes with the Respondent company and sometimes with other clients.

The Complainant gave evidence in relation to a hostile power struggle to gain ownership and control of the management company and the individual units on the campus. The Complainant had no part in this issue, and by July of 2017 the evidence is that the Director QG had direct control and ownership for the majority of the units and that he and his Co-Director were responsible for the Management of the campus through the Respondent Company. The Complainant was at all times an Employee of the Respondent company and I have a P60 for 2016 which discloses the veracity of this fact.

Without forewarning or consultation, the evidence is that GQ -one of the Respondent Directors -entered onto the campus on or about the 26th of July 2018 with the express purpose of excluding Employees he no longer wanted to have working for him. The Director commandeered the security and administrative offices and disarmed the fob system so that the Complainant and a number of his colleagues were no longer able to access this site.

The Complainant has had no further contact with the Respondent company. All communications and phone calls have been ignored. The Accountant has refused to send a P60 or P45 for 2017. The Complainant had no Notice and had to consider himself to have been dismissed in circumstances where he was shut out and ignored.

I am satisfied that this has amounted to an Unfair Dismissal and contrary to the Unfair Dismissals legislation.

In terms of compensation the Complainant had been on a fixed annual salary of €7,666.00 gross and continues to be at a loss of this amount, albeit he has tried to supplement this loss with his own Contract work. I am satisfied that the Complainant has made every effort to mitigate his losses.

I award the Complainant €10,200.00 compensation pursuant to Section 7.

Unfair Dismissal