Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Production Operative

Auto Service Provider

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00010725-001

06/04/2017

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the Production Manager was approached to take on the claimant in January 2017 and following a discussion with the MD he was taken on on a trial basis on the 25th.Jan. 2017.It was submitted that the claimant was given every assistance with setting up his PPS number and that he was paid in cash until his bank account was set up.It was submitted that the production manager had to take the claimant to task on a number of occasions about late attendance and aggressive behaviour.

The Production Manager contacted the claimant at 9.40 on the 31st.March 2017 to see if he would attend work on the following day.It was submitted that the claimant was drunk and became aggressive , complaining that he should be paid the same amount as experienced workers.The conversation ended and it was contended that the claimant made several more calls to the Production Manager who eventually turned off his phone.It was submitted that the claimant left messages on the manager’ s voicemail including a recording of a conversation with his partner where he alluded to breaking the manager’s neck and not caring if he had to do time for it.

The following day the manager discussed the situation with the MD who concluded that apart from time keeping and aggressive behaviour issues   the claimant’s threats the previous night constituted gross misconduct and that the claimant should be dismissed.

When the claimant turned up for work the following Monday he was informed that his services were no longer required – the following day the claimant apologised and asked for another chance but it was refused as it was concluded that his attitude and behaviour were intolerable.

It was submitted that the claimant never worked over 40 hours per week and that the first the respondent knew of the cliamant’s complaints about sore hands was after he left the employment.In a post hearing submission , the respondent submitted copies of the claimant’s clocking in cards which it was submitted demonstrated that the claimant did not work every Saturday or the number of hours claimed by him.

It was submitted that when the respondent received the complaint from the WRC , the respondent referred the matter of the alleged threats to the Gardai.

The claimant submitted that he worked overtime shifts every weekend and had been suffering severe and painful inflammation of his hands due to the repetitive and heavy nature of the work he performed for the respondent.It was submitted that when he was contacted on the 31st.March 2017 to come in the following day , he declined the work and was advised by the production manager that if he wouldn’t work he would dismiss him.The claimant denied being drunk on the phone and asserted that the production manager hung up on him and that he tried to get him back on the phone a number of times.The claimant accepted that he was angry and upset and had been speaking loudly.He acknowledged that he thought the phone was disconnected when he made an angry comment to his partner about breaking the manager’s neck and asserted that it was not intended to be heard by the manager.He stated that this was a common Lithuanian expression.It was submitted that the claimant was dismissed summarily without any procedures and that the claimant had suffered significant distress when he was interviewed by the Gardai about the incident at his home.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the conflicting position of the parties in relation to the phone calls on the Friday evening of the 31st.March 2017.The matter of dismissal is not in dispute and based on the evidence presented there is no doubt that the claimant was denied his rights under natural justice and no fair procedures were followed in the processing of his dismissal.Additionally , there appears to be no awareness on the respondent’s part with respect to their obligations under Section 17 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and its provisions relating to notice to attend work. I have also considered the terminology admitted to by the claimant in relation to breaking the manager’s neck and while I acknowledge the claimant’s assertion that it was never intended that the manager would hear this exchange , the claimant’s behaviour was unacceptable and it was a significant contributory factor in his dismissal.I am taking this into account in upholding the complaint and recommending that the claimant be paid compensation of €1,500 for his dismissal.