ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016224
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Timber and Steel Manufacturing Company |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
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-00018497-007 | 12/04/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00018497-008 | 12/04/2018 |
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-00018497-009 | 12/04/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00018497-010 | 12/04/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00018497-011 | 12/04/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00018497-012 | 12/04/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant is a Civil Engineer and was employed (at a salary of €546 per week) by the Respondent to purchase orders, however when she commenced work on 23 October 2017 she saw that the Health and Safety procedures of the Respondent were non-existent and for most of the 4 months of her employment she spent her time attempting to remedy this and to introduce systems to protect the safety of the employees who worked on the factory floor. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00018497-007 The Complainant never received her terms and conditions of employment in writing and did not receive pay slips
CA-00018497-008 The Complainant never received her terms and conditions of employment in writing and did not receive pay slips CA-00018497-009 This complaint is withdrawn CA-00018497-0010 This complaint is withdrawn CA-00018497-0011 [IR] Unfair Dismissal complaint taken under the Industrial Relations Acts as the Complainant was not employed in excess of 12 months. The Complainant was dismissed without notice on 2 February 2018. No reasons were provided. She was told by the manager that she was no longer required to work there. The words used by her manager were “You’re not needed any more.” When she started the position she set about improving the health and safety system (that was absent prior to her commencement). This included the operation of machinery, the lack of safety equipment, the system of work, all of which was highly unsafe. She put in place practices to remedy that – including training of the staff in safety practices. After four months of work, including working outside work hours, in order to remedy what she believed was a series of workplace accidents waiting to happen, her employer decided that he no longer needed her and let her go without reason and without notice. She also wonders if it was because her employer thought she might take leave from work to visit the U.S. where her brother was terminally ill, aged 52. The Complainant was not any paid notice and was not paid for 2 weeks wages that she was owed. This still has not been discharged. As a result of this she was left without any wages. She was not provided with a P45 for a further 8 weeks. This meant that she could not receive social welfare after being dismissed. At this very crucial time she had no money to travel to the US and her brother died without her seeing him, which is the biggest regret that the Complainant has about the way in which she was treated. Her losses to date are €4914.00, including notice. She also has an ongoing loss because she is on a lesser hourly rate of pay now in her new job but she explains that the dimunition in her salary is also explicable because part time work suits her (since her brother’s death) and in part because there has been a downturn in this business due to Brexit. CA-00018497-0012 The Complainant was the only female employee working in the Respondent’s factory. As a result she was treated differently. The culture in the company is sexist where there is no respect for women. Very few women are employed there. The managers expected the Complainant to make cups of tea because she was female. The Complainant was the only employee that was not invited to the Christmas party. When she raised this with her manager, the impossibility that she would be invited was acknowledged by him and laughed about. It was made clear to her that the event was restricted to “the boys.” The fact that the Complainant would not have wished to attend this event is irrelevant, the point is that she was not invited and this was because she was female. All other employees who were invited were male. This is raised as a prima facie evidence of adverse treatment to the Complainant on grounds of gender, which is undefended. She also did not receive a Christmas bonus and she while believes that all the factory (male) workers did receive this bonus, unlike the Christmas party, she cannot prove that she was the only employee who did not get a Christmas bonus and accepts that there may have been male employees who also were not paid the bonus.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No appearance |
Findings and Conclusions:
There was no appearance by the Respondent at the Adjudication hearing. Having been satisfied that the Respondent was properly on notice of the hearing, I proceeded to hear the complaints, all of which were undefended. CA-00018497-007. This complaint is undefended by the Respondent and I accept the evidence of the Complainant that she did not receive a contract or terms and conditions of employment in writing. I find this complaint to be well founded and in respect of this breach I award the Complainant 4 weeks pay: Award: €2184.00 CA-00018497-008. This complaint is a duplication of CA-00018497-007 and as such is not well founded. CA-00018497-009. Complaint withdrawn. CA-00018497-0010. Complaint withdrawn. CA-00018497-0011. I am satisfied that the evidence of the Complainant which was uncontested, is that she was treated in breach of any accepted norms of fair procedure when she was dismissed on 2 February 2018 without warning and without notice. I find this complaint to be well founded. I recommend that the Complainant be paid the loss of earnings which arose as a result of the dismissal. Recommended Award: €4914.00 CA-00018497-0012. I am satisfied that a prima facie case of adverse treatment on grounds of gender has been made out by the Complainant insofar as she was treated differently and adversely to the male workers in her employment by not being invited to the Staff Christmas party on the basis that it was a “boys only” affair. I find that the undefended complaint of discrimination to be well founded. I make this award taking account of the size of the Respondent business undertaking and in order to deter such discriminatory treatment. Award: €2000.00 |
Decision and Recommendation:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00018497-007. As I have found this complaint to be well founded I order an award of four weeks salary (4X €546) AWARD: €2184.00 CA-00018497-008. This complaint is not well founded CA-00018497-009. This complaint is withdrawn CA-00018497-0010. This complaint is withdrawn CA-00018497-011. As I have found this complaint to be well founded I recommend an award of €5000.00 compensation for the manner in which the Complainant was dismissed without any reasons provided or notice given. RECOMMENDATION: €4914.00 CA-00018497-012. As I have found this complaint to be well founded I award the Complainant €2000.00. AWARD: €2000.00 |
Dated: 13/12/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly