Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Truck Driver

A Company

Representatives

Helix HR

O'Dwyer Solicitors

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-00017414-001

13/02/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00017414-002

13/02/2018

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

CA-00017414-004

13/02/2018

The complainant detailed that he never received any terms and conditions of employment.

The complainant claims that he did not receive terms and conditions of employment or his minimum notice when his employment was terminated. The worker also claims that his employment was terminated unfairly.   He was paid €750 nett weekly.

The respondent details that the complainant had received his terms and conditions and while he had initially conceded that the complainant had not received terms and conditions, he advised that they had been later found in the complainant’s truck when he left the organisation and that he had not signed them.

The respondent details that a contract is normally given upon commencement of employment by Ms A, a woman who works in the office. Mr B, the Manager indicated that he would be surprised if she had not given them to the complainant. A handbook is also available for employees in the office which contains details of the grievance and disciplinary procedure.

Section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 states that an “employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee's employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the … terms of the employee's employment.”

Based on the evidence I must prefer the evidence of the complainant that the respondent has not met their obligations in providing the complainant with his terms and conditions of employment. I uphold the complaint.

The complainant details that on Friday November 24th, 2017 there was a telephone conversation between his manager, Mr B, and himself in which Mr B told him that he had loaded goods incorrectly. He advised that he was verbally abused by Mr B who told him “you might as well stay at home” to which the complainant advised “I will stay at home so” and the call ended.

A few hours later he received two text messages the first of which stated, “can you please take your belongings out of the truck tomorrow” to which he replied “sure” and another text message which said, “talk to Ms A she will sort out holiday pay and whatever you are owed”.

A few days later, he received his P45 and an email stating “we now formally accept your resignation”.

He never received his minimum notice which he believes he was entitled to as his employment was terminated.

The respondent disputed that the complainant’s employment was terminated and said that he resigned his own position.

It was outlined that there had been numerous issues with the complainant including damage he caused to a truck. The respondent detailed that he became very frustrated when the complainant failed to comply with the correct standards when he loaded a container. He confirmed that he told him that he should stay at home if he was not willing to comply with the regulations and that it was the complainant who, therefore, resigned his position when he said that he would stay at home.

He gave the complainant a few hours to cool down as he thought that the complainant might calm down and change his mind about resigning, but when this did not happen he told him to clear out his belongings.

As there had been no termination, it was detailed that the complainant was not entitled to minimum notice.

The complainant stated he was dismissed and the respondent detailed that the complainant resigned his position.

The details of the conversation between them on November 24th, 2017 were not significantly in dispute but what was disputed was the meaning behind their respective statements.

I note that after the heated exchange on the day in question, it was the respondent who contacted the complainant to tell him to take his belongings out of the truck. While the complainant replied in a text message with a single word of “sure”, I would have expected that the respondent would have contacted the complainant to suggest that they meet at work to discuss the issues. This did not occur.

On that basis I prefer the evidence of the complainant that he was dismissed and was dismissed without the respondent adhering to its obligations under the Section 4 of the legislation which requires

“(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

I find that the complaint is well-founded.

The worker details that he was dismissed on Friday November 24th, 2017 through a telephone conversation and this was followed up later with text messages detailed above.  

A few days later, he received his P45 and an email stating “we now formally accept your resignation”.

Despite emailing the head office of the employer with his concerns, he received no response and detailed his unhappiness that no procedures were followed by the employer with regard to his dismissal.

The employer disputed the worker’s version of events and said that the worker resigned his own position.

It was outlined that there had been numerous issues with the worker including damage that he caused to a truck. The employer detailed that he became very frustrated when the worker failed to comply with the correct standards when he loaded a container.

He confirmed that he told him that he should stay at home if he was not willing to comply with the regulations during a telephone conversation and there was an exchange of text messages detailed in the previous complaint.

It was detailed that it was the worker who, therefore, resigned his position when he said that he would stay at home.

The worker stated he was dismissed and the employer detailed that the worker resigned his position.

I have already detailed that the worker was dismissed and as the worker was dismissed without the employer adhering to its obligations under Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000, I recommend that compensation is appropriate in the circumstances.

CA-00017414-001

I uphold the complaint and award the complainant €350 to be paid by the respondent.

CA-00017414-002

I find that the complaint is well-founded and I direct that the Respondent pay the Complainant one weeks pay, namely €750 nett.

CA-00017414-003

I recommend that the employer pays the employee €600 by way of compensation.

Minimum notice, industrial relations act, terms and conditions,