LCR21827

1. The Worker stated he had never received any disciplinary actions written or oral or any indication of a pending dismissal prior to having his employment terminated on 10 July 2018.
2. The Worker believes the fact that he was awarded a pay increase after approximately 6 months of employment was an indication that a probation period had been passed.
3. The Worker had never been provided with a contract of employment.

The Worker was employed by KN Networks (‘the Company’) as a stores person between 23 August 2017 and 24 July 2018. He had received two weeks’ notice of the termination of his employment. Following the termination of his employment, the Worker referred a complaint under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’) to the Workplace Relations Commission. The Company, through its representatives, ESA Consultants, objected to an Adjudication Officer conducting an investigation into the dispute under section 13. Thereafter, the Worker referred the dispute to the Court under section 201(1) of the Act. The Court sat to investigate the dispute on 14 November 2018. The Company was not represented at the hearing.

The Worker informed the Court, in his written submission, that he had previously worked for the Company for some eighteen months, ending – at his instigation -approximately some six months before his most recent period of employment with the Company commenced. He also told the Court that he hadn’t received a written statement of terms and conditions from the Company on either occasion.

It appears that the Worker received a telephone call from a director of the Company on 31 July 2018 following receipt by the Company of notification of the Worker’s referral to the Workplace Relations Commission. The director offered to re-employ the Worker at that time. However, the Worker declined the offer of re-employment and informed the director that his preference was to await the outcome of the investigation of the within dispute.

The Worker submits that his employment was wrongfully and unlawfully terminated and he is seeking compensation for this and for the Company’s failure to provide him with a written contract and/or written statement of terms and conditions of employment.

Discussion and Recommendation

The Court cannot accept the Worker’s submission to the effect that his employment was either unlawfully or wrongfully terminated. The Worker did not have sufficient continuous service to entitle him to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. There has been no suggestion that his dismissal was in any discriminatory within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act 1998. It follows, therefore, that the Worker’s dismissal is regulated only by the common law which provides that an employer may terminate a Worker’s employment on giving contractual or sufficient notice. No submission was made by the Worker to the effect that the two weeks’ notice he received did not satisfy this requirement. It follows that there is no basis for awarding the Worker compensation in respect of his dismissal in circumstances where he had less than fifty-two weeks’ continuous service and had received two weeks’ notice of the Company’s intention to terminate his employment.

However, the Worker should have been furnished with a written statement of terms and conditions at the outset of his employment. The Court recommends that the Company pay him compensation of €200.00 for its oversight in this regard.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
JD______________________
15 November 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.