ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021787
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Security Controller | A Security Company |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Declined to attend by formal Objection. |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00028316-001 | ||
CA-00028317-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
1: Procedure:
1:1 In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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).
1:2 Time Lines & Respondent Objection to a Hearing.
The complaint was lodged with the WRC on the 10th May 2019 and notified to the Respondent on the 30th May. The Respondent was advised of a 21-day deadline for the lodging of objections to a Hearing under the Industrial Relations Act. The Respondent lodged an Objection, dated the 20th of June 2019 and received by the WRC on the 25th June. This objection was deemed to be outside of the 21-day deadline and the case proceeded to a Hearing.
Background:
The issues in contention concern the alleged Unfair Dismissal of a Security Controller by a Security Company |
2: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainnat commenced employment on the 1st March 2019. In the following weeks he requested his Contract of Employment on several occasions. It was not forthcoming -dates of requests supplied and copy e mails advanced. In early May 2019 a query arose regarding an alleged pay shortfall. He was requested to attend a meeting on the 8th May 2019. He was informed at this meeting that he would not be getting a contract as “he was not working out”. Discussions took place and the meeting ended at approximately 12.50. Later that day at approximately 16.23 he received an email stating that he was being dismissed. He was paid notice pay. There had been no notice of the Dismissal and all procedures as set out in SI 146 of 2000 -Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures had been completely ignored. The Dismissal was accordingly completely unfair both procedurally and in terms of Natural Justice. |
3: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent declined to attend and submitted an objection as detailed above in the Procedures section. Accordingly, no rebuttal evidence was provided. |
4: Findings and Conclusions:
As there was no Respondent evidence I had to evaluate the credibility of the Complainant’s evidence both written and oral. He presented as credible and had a good range of supporting copy e mails from the Employer. I came to the view that that his version of events was of sufficient credibility to support his case of Unfair Dismissal under the Industrial Relations Acts. It was clear that no procedures of any proper kind had been followed. Accordingly, I find that a complaint of Unfair Dismissal, under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 is well founded. As the claim is under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 I recommend that a sum of €5,000 be paid as Redress to the Complainant for the Unfair Dismissal and the allied trauma and upset. This I deemed to be “just and equitable” in view of the Complainant’s short service and early return to gainful employment. |
5: RECOMMENDATION
Section 13 of the of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. | ||
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Please refer to Section 4 above for detailed reasoning. |
CA-00028316-001 | A complaint of Unfair Dismissal is deemed to be well founded. Redress of €5,000 is Recommended. | |
CA-00028317-001 | Copy of 28316-001 and is withdrawn. | |
Dated: 2nd December 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
|