ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020340
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Recruitment Company |
Complaint(s):
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-00026640-001 | 28/02/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00026641-001 | 28/02/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/06/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Withdrawn:
CA-00026640-002 was withdrawn as it was a duplicate claim. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced working for the respondent on the 29th October, 2012. He was placed at a warehouse of a large supermarket chain. In February 2016 he went out on sick leave, following a workplace accident. He submitted his sick certificates every month. He never returned to work. He remains on a Disability Pension to this day. The complainant suffers from a condition known as Aplastic Anaemia. The complainant contacted his employer in February 2019 looking for his p60 for the year 2018. He was informed that his employer did not have a P60 for him for the year 2018 as he did not work there. He was informed that his employment had been terminated in March 2018. He was given no notice of the termination and no explanation as to why. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No Appearance for or on behalf of the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00026640-001 It is clear from the complainant’s uncontested evidence that he was not informed by the respondent that his employment was being terminated and the reasons for same. He continued to submit sick certificates monthly. Nobody contacted him to ask him to stop sending the certificates. If the respondent wanted to dismiss the complainant on incapacity grounds, there is a process that they should have invoked prior to the dismissal. That process is clearly set out in the case of Bolger v. Showerings ELR 184. In that case it was held that in a case involving dismissal for incapacity, the onus is on the employer to show: 1.That it was the incapacity that was the reason for the dismissal 2.The reason was substantial 3.The employee received fair notice that the question of his dismissal for incapacity was being considered; and 4.The employee was afforded an opportunity of being heard. It would seem that the respondent dismissed with complainant in the absence of any procedures and without affording him the opportunity to be heard. In all the circumstances I find that the complaint is well founded. The complainant is not available for work and has been on a disability pension since 2016. Therefore, any award I can make is limited to a maximum of four week’s pay. In all of the circumstances I am awarding the complainant € 3,200.00. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant €3,200.00 |
Dated: 30-08-19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Key Words:
|