Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Take Away Worker

A Restaurant

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-00009424-002

31/01/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00009424-003

31/01/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00009424-004

31/01/2017

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a take away worker in the period from 8th of January 2016 until the 16th of January 2017. He was paid €200 and worked 35 hours per week. The parties made oral submission oral evidence to the hearing.                                                          Complaint reference number CA-00009424-003 was withdrawn at hearing.

CA-00009424-002: The complainant submits that he was not provided with written terms and conditions of employment in breach of s. 3 of the Act.

CA-00009424-004: The complainant submits that he was issued with two weeks’ notice on the 2nd of January 2017 without explanation or reason and paid his statutory entitlement to minimum notice pay. He had no previous warnings and there was no attempt to apply the rules of natural justice.

CA-00009424-002: The respondent accepts that no written terms and conditions of employment were provided.

CA-00009424-004: The respondent submits that the complainant resigned and that no dismissal took place. The complainant’s father who was also an employee of the respondent informed that his son was unhappy working in the premises and that he wanted to spend more time with his new girlfriend. They had both complained that the apartment over the premises which was provided as part of their wages was cold and not very nice.

CA-00009424-002: The respondent accepts the breach. The appropriate level of compensation is two weeks’ pay.

CA-00009424-004: I find it somewhat incredible the that respondent did not ask the complainant for a written resignation in circumstances where he had indicated he wished to leave on the one hand and that he was paid statutory minimum notice on the other. For this reason, the complainant’s submission is preferred. Concerning the issue of mitigation and loss the complainant in his evidence stated that he had registered on google but was not able to provide proof. He did not register with the Department of Social Protection. He did seek work locally in Galway but could not remember the names of the companies, other than two. He indicated that he handed out his CV in writing rather than using the postal or email to those companies. He eventually was successful in getting a job with a meat company in August 2017 but left to work with his dad in November. He also stated that he worked on trial in a take away business for one week and that he had spent a month’s holiday in Italy.

I find that the dismissal was unfair and that compensation is the appropriate remedy.

CA-00009424-002: The complaint is well founded. I hereby require that the respondent pay the complainant €400 (say four hundred euro) for breach of s. 3 of the Act.

CA-00009424-004: The complaint is well founded. I hereby require the respondent pay the complainant €1,600 (say one thousand six hundred euro) in compensation.