Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A salesman

A Printing 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-00017797-001

06/03/2018

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from the 2nd January 2017 until he was dismissed by the Respondent on the 31st January 2018. The Complainant is claiming Unfair Dismissal under the terms of S. 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The Respondent says that the dismissal was justified on the basis of the conduct of the Complainant.

The Complainant says that he joined the Respondent company on the 2nd January 2017. He says he was employed as a sales manager and while initially working 5 days but paid at the rate of 3 days. This arrangement continued until the 1st July 2017, when he was paid for 5 days, with 50% of his salary coming from the Respondent directly and the remaining 50% coming from the Acumen Grant Programme funds, awarded to the company to aid expansion into other markets. A salary of €37,500 per annum was agreed.

He says that his employment was terminated, “with immediate effect” by the Respondent, on the 31st January 2018. The dismissal was handed down in the Complainant’s own home, by the Respondent. He says that he was never given any terms and conditions of employment, despite asking for same on a number of occasions. He says he was neither provided with an employee handbook or terms of the Respondent’s grievance procedure.

He says that he received notice of his dismissal and says that the reason given to him, at the time of his termination was that it was due to his prosecution in for theft from a previous employer. He says that the reason advanced was “manifestly unfair”. He says that he did not receive notice of his dismissal and was not afforded time to seek alternative work. He says that he behaved, at all times, reasonably in respect of his employment.

He says he laid out his claim to the Respondent, via email, on the 4th February 2018, but did not receive a reply.

The Complainant submits that:

1.       “The Respondent, in dismissing him, did not comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures.

2.       The Respondent failed to comply with any dismissal procedures, or statutory obligations

3.       The Complainant was not given information around disciplinary codes or procedures of the Respondent, at any time, and so was not on notice of breaches of discipline which, if proved, would warrant suspension or dismissal.

4.       He says that the Respondent did not consult or engage with him around the reasons for dismissal and did not consider alternatives to termination of employment.

5.       He says that he was not afforded any opportunity to put forward proposals in relation to his dismissal or to reply to any allegations through disciplinary procedures or otherwise.

6.       He was not afforded the opportunity to challenge his dismissal through a representative.

7.       He did not receive any written or formal warning in respect of his dismissal.

8.       He did not receive any formal or written notice prior to dismissal.

9.       He was not given the opportunity to look for alternative work.

10.   He was not subject to any proper investigation on the Respondent’s behalf, and the Respondent did not carry out an enquiry prior to dismissal.

11.   The Respondent’s dismissal of the Complainant was unreasonable in circumstances where it did not comply with any general category of fairness in accordance with s.6(4)of the 1977 Act.

The Complainant says, in summary, that he received no submissions on the Respondent’s behalf to date. He says he was treated poorly by the Respondent throughout his employment and in particular in the termination of his employment, which amounts to unfair dismissal”.

The Complainant, in direct evidence, said that there was no proper process used in his dismissal. Had he had the opportunity to discuss what had arisen, he would have been prepared to accept a period of suspension from his position, or a job on the print factory floor.

The Respondent says that he and the Complainant know one another and had been good friends for more than 30 years and had helped one another out in the work that they both did, in the printing business, over that time.

He became aware that the Complainant had entered a fraudulent claim to the Revenue Commissioners in 2013. This resulted in the Respondent being interviewed by Revenue officials because the claim had been issued through the Respondent’s office. Revenue confirmed that the claim was fraudulent.

The Respondent says that the Complainant had had business difficulties and that he had offered to help him by allowing him to use the Respondent’s office and equipment to run his (the Complainant’s business). In this he was expected to purchase his own raw materials to produce the goods he had for sale, with back-up administration on his own company stationery.

That Complainant’s business did not improve and the Respondent offered the Complainant a role, employed in his (the Respondent’s business). This sales role started on a part-time basis and developed into a fulltime role when the Complainant successfully applied for a grant from the Acumen Grant Programme and succeeded in getting it. This grant was to enable the company to develop markets in Northern Ireland.

He says that on the 30th January 2018 he had understood that the Revenue issue was up for consideration by the Courts. He said that the Complainant sought to borrow €50,000 from him on the pretext of settling matters with Revenue and he said he was of a mind to help his friend. That day a national newspaper carried a report of the Court proceedings that the Complainant was involved in. It was not to do with the Revenue issue but with the fact that he had pleaded guilty, following a police investigation, to stealing €25,000 in cash from a company he was employed with in 2016.

The Respondent says that his business was not mentioned in the newspaper article but that “people in the business” would know the Complainant. He was now concerned about the effect on his own business and how customers and suppliers would react. He now believed that the loan sought was to settle the debt with that employer. He says he never knew anything about this and was offended that someone whom he had helped when in difficulty, could deceive him in this way.

He says that this was a gross breach of trust by the Complainant. The fraud and lies had given rise to an absolute distrust of the Complainant, such that he could not contemplate him working for his company from that moment on. He drove to the Complainant’s residence and confronted him. He found nothing in mitigation and says that for the gross breach of trust he had no option but to dismiss the Complainant there and then.

Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 says that “Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following ….” and section 6 (4) (b) says “the conduct of the employee”.

In this context I find that the conduct of the employee was undoubtedly the cause of his dismissal.

He had been treated most fairly by the Respondent over many years such that the Respondent had a right to expect honesty and truth in the relationship. What he found out, on the pages of a national newspaper in respect of the Complainant was deceit, fraud, stealing and dishonesty, with no regard to the Respondent personally or to his business.

I accept that, in the circumstances, the Respondent had the right to believe that he could not have the Complainant work in his business a moment longer and was justified in instantly dismissing him.

I find that the complaint fails.