ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012290
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Painter | A Decoration Company |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00016207-003 | 07/12/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00016207-004 | 07/12/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant was employed with the Respondent from 5th May 2017 to 4th August 2017 as a Painter. His weekly wages were 873.45 euro gross. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant never received a copy of his terms and conditions of employment in writing from the Respondent. He requested this on a few occasions and was told it would be furnished. The written terms were never given to him prior to his dismissal. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance by the Respondent at the hearing on 28th June 2018. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Pursuant to s.3 of the Act there is a continuing obligation on employers to furnish a written statement of the terms of employment to an employee after 2 months of employment has passed. The evidence of the Complainant is that this did not occur. There is no appearance by the Respondent. I accept the evidence of the Complainant. I find the complaint is well founded and award the Complainant 2 weeks wages of 1,746.90 euro as compensation for breach of the Act. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find the complaint is well founded and award the Complainant 2 weeks wages of 1,746.90 euro as compensation for breach of the Act. |
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Worker was employed with the Respondent from 5th May 2017 to 4th August 2017 as a Painter. His weekly wages were 873.45 euro gross. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Worker got on well in the company initially. An incident arose at a house in the summer. It was a hot day and the staff were sunbathing in the garden. There was banter about taking drinks from the Fridge in the shed by him. Nothing happened, nothing was stolen and the fridge was locked. He does not drink alcohol. The following week he was put on another job. One employee said he was trying to steal from the house, which was not true and another employee verified his version of events. This was accepted by the Respondent at the time. He was moved to another job the following week. A few months later, he was contacted by the Respondent who said he wanted to speak to him about something serious. The employer said he had carried out a background check on him with the Gardai and had to let him go. The Worker had been charged with 2 minor offences for stealing nearly 20 years ago when he was 18 years of age. His employer did not receive his permission to check this. He was dismissed that day without an investigation, warning or written reason for his dismissal. He was not guilty of misconduct. The Worker believes he was dismissed because he discussed disclosing irregularities with his pay to Revenue. He asked for his contract and payslips after some months but was never given these. He was concerned that he may not be taxed correctly. He did not receive a P60 and only received payslips for 2 or 3 weeks in August which do not match the payments made. He has only worked sporadically since his dismissal and has loss of earnings. He was subsequently paid one week’s wages owed. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing on 28th June 2018. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have already found that the Worker was not given written terms of his employment in breach of the Respondent’s obligations under the Act in CA-00016207-003 . The Worker provided evidence of a serious issue raised by the Respondent in relation to historical criminal charges against the Worker on 4th August 2017. The Respondent notified the Worker of this on 4th August and dismissed him. The Respondent did not apply any formal written procedures nor did it comply with the provisions of Statutory Instrument 146/2000. There was no notice given to the Worker of the allegations against him, nor opportunity given to obtain representation. There was no proper investigation nor was a disciplinary process carried out which would allow the Worker to respond to the allegations, and try to clear his name. The Worker was unfairly dismissed in breach of fair procedures. He worked for a period of 3 months with the Respondent. In the circumstances, I recommend payment of 10,500 euro compensation. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The Worker was unfairly dismissed in breach of fair procedures. In the circumstances I recommend payment of 10,500 euro compensation. |
Dated: 21 November 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Continuing obligation S3 of Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, breach of Act Lack of fair procedures, breach of SI 146/2000, criminal history of Worker |