ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009663
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Storeman | Transport Company |
Complaints:
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-00012666-001 | 20/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012666-002 | 20/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the UnfairDismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 and Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
|
The Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed and that he did not receive the requisite statutory minimum notice.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent contends that as per s.6 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 there were substantial grounds justifying the Complainant’s dismissal. He was dismissed on the grounds of conduct as set out in s.6 (4) (b) of the Act. The Complainant was dismissed for an unauthorised use of a company vehicle outside company time. He took possession of the vehicle without due authorisation, and had driven it while uninsured. This was considered gross misconduct and he was dismissed following a process of investigation and suspension. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It is argued that the dismissal of the Complainant was blatantly unfair. He was given permission by Mr CD to drive the vehicle home as his own van was broken down. The Complainant had no knowledge of any insurance issues. It is further argued that the employer carried out the disciplinary process with total disregard for the practice as laid out in the Statutory Instrument S.I. 146 (2000).
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant was dismissed for having taken a company vehicle and driving it without due authorisation and having not been insured for same. I find that this was a serious charge levelled at the Complainant. I note the conflict of evidence regarding Mr CD having allegedly given permission and I cannot reconcile this conflict. The manner in which the Respondent carried out the disciplinary process was not in accordance with best practice as provided for in S.I. 146 (2000). That statutory instrument indicates that in disciplinary situations the employee must be given prior notice of the alleged transgression, the right to representation of choice and the right to appeal. I find that due to lack of fair procedures, the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. |
Decision:
CA-00012666-001
In accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, and based on the findings above, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. I consider compensation to be the appropriate remedy as neither re-instatement or re-engagement are appropriate as the employment relationship has irretrievably broken down. I note that the Complainant obtained employment 9 months after his dismissal and I award him the sum of €12,000 compensation.
CA-00012666-002
It is common case that the Complainant received two weeks notice. The statutory notice for an employee with his service is six weeks. I uphold his claim and require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the remaining 4 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.
Dated: 04/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham