ADJ-00009248

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A truck driver

A haulage 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-00012140-001

26/06/2017

The complainant commenced employment as a truck driver on March 14th 2016. He was dismissed on June 16th 2017. On that day, serious damage had been caused to the truck he was driving. He complains that he received no warnings about his conduct or performance and that no procedure was followed by his employer in the lead-up to his dismissal.  

The respondent is a haulage business with a contract in a construction components company in Tallaght.   The complainant was assigned to make deliveries for this company and he reported to a supervisor on the site.  

The respondent said that when the complainant first joined the company, there were no major problems.   Towards the end of 2016 however, he said that there were issues with the way he was carrying out the work associated with delivering for the construction company. He didn’t strap loads down securely, so that the supervisor had to constantly remind him to do his job properly. From January 2017 on, he said that things continued to deteriorate, with the complainant refusing to do early jobs and objecting to jobs which could result in him being late back to Dublin. He refused to take instructions from the supervisor and, “there was a consistent pattern of behaviour” which ultimately, resulted in his dismissal.

The respondent said that he bought a new truck which he assigned to the complainant. From the start, he said that the complainant found problems with the truck and he complained that it was too big. He said that the truck was in good condition, but that the complainant was careless about how he drove it, with the result that it became damaged and had to be repaired on several occasions, at a cost to the respondent. He said that he lost three mud flaps in three days and damaged the rear bars.   On one occasion, after he had finished a delivery, the respondent said that the complainant left the truck in the middle of the yard of the construction company, with the cab open and the controls not closed down.

On Friday, June 16th, the respondent said that when the truck the complainant was driving was returned to the yard, the undercarriage had been badly damaged.   He said that the only way the damage could have been caused was by the complainant driving carelessly over a raised surface or a speed ramp. He said that he sent the complainant a text message with a photo of the truck and told him not to come back to work.

At the hearing, I asked the respondent about a disciplinary procedure and the process to be followed in his company when a dismissal is being considered. He said that he accepts that he should have had proper procedures in place and that he should have issued warnings before arriving at his decision to dismiss the complainant. He said that he is a one-man operation and he hasn’t got anyone employed to manage the HR side of things. He said that when the truck was damaged, he felt he couldn’t keep the complainant on any longer.

At the end of the hearing, the respondent accepted that he had not followed normal procedures where a dismissal is contemplated and he undertook to get some HR support to avoid a similar occurrence in the future.

In the early days of his employment with the respondent, the complainant said that he got on well.   Some months later, his employer bought a new truck which was assigned to him and he said that it was “old and since the day he bought it, there were issues with it.”

On Tuesday, June 13th, the complainant said that at 3.30pm, he was asked to do an early shift starting at 6.00am the next day. He said that he refused, as he felt that he hadn’t been given enough notice.   He said that on the same day, he informed the respondent that the mud guard on the truck was broken. He said that the respondent said that he thought the job didn’t suit him any longer and that he should look for another job or finish up on Friday. The complainant said that they had a discussion and the respondent said he could stay until he found another job.

On Friday of the same week, the complainant said that he got a call from the respondent asking him what time he had finished up with his last delivery. He said that he phoned back to say that he was already finished. He said that the respondent instructed him to take his belongings out of the cab as he was letting him go. The complainant said that he reminded the respondent that he had said that he could stay until he found another job. He said that the respondent said he would think about it over the weekend; however, later that evening, he sent the complainant a text message to confirm that he was dismissed.

At the hearing, the complainant said that he was unemployed for two weeks and that he has been working since the end of June 2017.

From the evidence presented at the hearing, it appears that, on Wednesday, June 13th 2016, the complainant understood that his employment with the respondent was coming to an end. It is clear that the complainant was unhappy with the truck he was expected to drive, and the respondent was unhappy with his attitude and the damage that was being caused to the vehicle. On June 13th, the complainant asked the respondent if he would hold off letting him go until he found another job.

On the Friday of that week however, considerable damage was caused to the truck driven by the complainant and he dismissed him by text message on that day.

Leaving aside the reason for the dismissal, from a procedural perspective, there are several deficiencies in the way this complainant’s employment was terminated. The respondent company had no disciplinary procedure in place, no warnings were issued, the complainant was not given an opportunity to sort out the problems with his attitude and the standard of his driving and he was dismissed by text message. No conclusion can be arrived at other than to find that this was an unfair dismissal.

Following the termination of his employment, the complainant was out of work for two weeks.   On the basis that I have found that his dismissal was unfair, I make an award of €1,217, equivalent to two weeks’ pay.

Lack of procedures