ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017324
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | General Operative | Logistics and 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-00022439-001 | 05/10/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00022439-002 | 05/10/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00022439-003 | 05/10/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 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 was dismissed from his employment and did not receive minimum notice or payment in lieu. He was not made redundant from his position so the claim under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 is not valid. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as a General Operative from 1st May 2008 to 28th August 2018. He stated in evidence that he had a number of health and safety concerns which he and some of his colleagues brought to the attention of management and a meeting was held with management about the issues, such as holes in the ground of the building where they were working and machinery which the workers considered dangerous. The Complainant stated that he developed back problems and his absenteeism was due to this. He contended that it was exacerbated by having to stand on top of machinery to reach the top of the picking places. He contends that sometime in June or July 2018 he and other Pickers were brought in by Supervisor Mr X and he was told his performance was satisfactory. He stated that he was then suddenly dismissed in August 2018, without warning or disciplinary process. He said that he did receive a written warning re his pick rates and absenteeism in August 2017, due to expire in August 2018. However, he was not given any verbal warnings prior to this. He further states he was not given his statutory entitlement to minimum notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Depot Manager gave evidence of the Complainant’s history of employment. He stated that the Complainant received his first corrective meeting on 3rd June 2008 and that there were 17 incidents on the record for him, ranging from corrective meetings, verbal warnings and written warnings for low pick rates and absenteeism, damage to company property, clocking issues and insubordination. At one point the Complainant was transferred to another line. However, he was a negative influence on the Pickers, and the pick rate deteriorated. It has since increased since he was dismissed. The Complainant was dismissed for poor performance and because the same issues came up time after time in his corrective meetings with no improvement. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00022439-001 |
The Complainant was dismissed without due process. It has long been established that in accordance with Statutory Instrument S.I. 146 of 2000, employees have the right to fair hearing, to be represented and the right of appeal. In this case, none of these rights were afforded the Complainant. I find that he was therefore unfairly dismissed. I note however, the long history of unsatisfactory performance, and I find that there was a large degree of contributory negligence and I have taken that into account in my decision regarding redress. CA-00022439-002 The Complainant’s position was not made redundant and I find that he is not therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. CA-00022439-003 The Complainant is entitled to six weeks’ minimum notice. The Respondent was not in a position to advise the hearing of any payment in lieu of such notice. I have decided therefore that the Complainant’s complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,232. |
Decision:
CA-00022439-001 |
I have decided that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and that compensation is the appropriate remedy. I find that there was a large degree of contributory negligence and I have taken that into account in my decision regarding redress. I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €7,000. CA-00022439-002 The Complainant’s position was not made redundant and I find that he is not therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. CA-00022439-003 I have decided that the Complainant’s complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €2,232. |
Dated: 11/12/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal, Fair Procedures, Contributory negligence |