Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A telesales executive

A utilities billing company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00017937-001

07/03/2018

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent company as a telesales executive on March 3rd 2017. He was dismissed on January 22nd 2018 and his complaint is that, when his employment was terminated, his employer did not follow proper procedures.

Having been employed for almost 11 months, the complainant said that he was called to a meeting on Monday, January 22nd 2018 by the respondent’s head of internal sales and another manager, the inside sales manager. On the previous Saturday, the complainant said that he was asked to work, but that he didn’t attend work. He said that there was no obligation on him to work on Saturdays.

At the meeting, the complainant said that the head of internal sales said that it appeared that he wasn’t interested in the job and he was being dismissed

One week following his dismissal, the complainant said that he received a letter confirming the termination of his employment, although he did not bring this letter to the hearing.   He also received an e mail with a list of breaches of work-related procedures. He also received the minutes of a meeting which took place on January 15th and the minutes of the meeting on January 22nd, at which he was dismissed. None of these documents were produced at the hearing.

The complainant’s case is that, before he was invited to the meeting at which he was dismissed, he was not told what the meeting was about and he was not given the opportunity to bring someone with him. He said he did not receive the details of the procedural breaches until a week after he was dismissed and as a result, he had no opportunity to prepare a response.   At the meeting at which he was dismissed, the complainant said that he was not told who made the decision to dismiss him and he was not informed that he could appeal against his dismissal.   On the basis of these procedural failings, he claims that his dismissal was unfair.

On June 28th 2018, the HR manager for the respondent wrote to the WRC:

“I write on behalf of (name of the respondent) and the upcoming case mentioned above on the 3rd July 2018, I wish to advise that the Company respectfully declines the invitation to attend this hearing and will not be present on the day.”

As the respondent did not attend the hearing, no consideration can be given to their position in relation to this matter.

While the complainant referred to certain documents that he received in relation to his dismissal, he did not bring them to the hearing. As these were not produced in evidence, this recommendation is made in the absence of complete information about what led to his dismissal. His case is that he was dismissed because his manager said that he didn’t seem to be interested in his job. While the complainant said that there was no obligation on him to work on Saturdays, he did not produce a contract of employment which may have contained some reference to Saturday working.

It is regrettable also that the respondent did not attend the hearing, as this recommendation is based only on the evidence of the complainant.

Whatever the reason for the dismissal of an employee, it is now settled law and firmly established practice that employees are entitled to the benefit of fair procedures based on the principles of natural justice. I have no information with regard to the procedures that are in place in this employment, but, even if standard procedures are not available, the Oireachtas has enacted a statutory instrument, SI 146 2000, as a Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

Based on the evidence submitted by the complainant, it appears that the way in which he was dismissed was not in accordance with the requirements of SI 146 2000, or the standard procedures which apply in most workplaces.

At the hearing, the complainant said that he got a job two weeks after he was dismissed and he continues to be employed, although his salary is less than what he earned with the respondent, €21,000 per year, compared to €25,000. He said that he is prevented from getting a better job because he did not receive a reference when he was dismissed.

I recommend that the respondent provide the complainant with a reference, setting out his start and finish date and some details of the responsibilities of the job he had as telesales executive. I also recommend that the respondent pay the complainant €2,000 gross, which is equivalent to approximately four weeks’ pay, as compensation for the failure to follow proper procedures at the termination of his employment.

Disciplinary procedures