ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An apprentice motor mechanic | A motor garage |
Representatives | In person | No appearance |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00026329-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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 started work for the Respondent on 27 August 2018. He was summarily dismissed on 10 January 2019. He is bringing an unfair dismissal case under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Having worked 4 months with the Respondent he was dismissed from his job. On 10 January 2019 was simply told to pack his tools and to leave. At the time he was not given a reason. Later, after he issued the WRC complaint he was told that it was due to errors made in his work; 5 in total however these were either not of his making or arose because his work was meant to be being supervised and was not. He was out of work for one month at which point he got alternative work working on an oyster farm. He has not been able to complete his motor apprenticeship however and he has suffered losses to the college which he was registered with to complete his apprenticeship. The Complainant took this complaint to the WRC not because he wants money but because he wants to highlight the vulnerable position that apprentices are in and to highlight that the purpose of an apprenticeship it to learn. In order to learn their work should be supervised by a qualified mechanic. In this case, the Respondent just regarded him as cheap labour and bore no responsibility for him. He was never warned or told how to do a job differently, he was simply dismissed with no warning. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No appearance |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As the Respondent failed to attend the hearing and having been satisfied that they were properly on notice of the hearing, I proceeded to hear this complaint on an uncontested basis. I am satisfied that the Complainant was dismissed without warning and without reason on 10 January 2019. I am satisfied that his dismissal was unfair and consequently I find this complaint to be well founded. I also heard evidence that the Complainant did not receive a contract in writing and was not informed that his probation period would be extended, although no complaint under the terms and conditions of employment Act has been pursued Under my jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, I recommend that the Respondent pay to the Complainant the sum of €1120 in compensation which represents the loss in earnings that the Complainant sustained following his unfair dismissal.
Award: €1120.00 |
Dated: 8th August 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
|