ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023948
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Accounts Administrator | Community Charity |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00030574-001 | 30/08/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
Having confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and Having conducted the Investigation as described in Section 13, I, as the so appointed Adjudication Officer, am bound to make a recommendation which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.
Under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, any party may object to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer of the dispute raised in the complaint form. The Respondent employer must indicate any such objection in writing within 21 days of the notification of the dispute raised in the workplace relations complaint form. In the event that the Employer does not indicate an unwillingness to have this matter dealt with by way of Adjudicator investigation, the Employer will be regarded as having given consent.
If an objection is not received within the required timeframe and in the required format but at a later date it will not be considered valid for the purpose of this Act, and a hearing in relation to the dispute will be assigned.
Background:
The Complainant was engaged as an Account’s Assistant and commenced employment. Four weeks later the employment was terminated by the Respondent. The Complainant takes issue at the manner of and the reasons (or lack thereof) for the dismissal. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended in person and gave evidence on his own behalf. The Complainant’s evidence was not contradicted in any way |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was put on notice of the hearing date and time was given for a late arrival. The Respondent has made no objection to the hearing of this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully listened to the complainant’s evidence. As the Respondent did not attend, the Complainant’s version of events was not challenged or contradicted in any way.
The Complainant was interviewed for an Accounts position in this Charitable entity. As the Respondent provides a service there is an invoice mechanism to be overseen. The Complainant, having been successful at interview, was employed to work a part-time 19.5 hour week. I accept that the Complainant was given a limited amount of training and given the part-time nature of the position it was more difficult to get him fully up to speed given he wasn’t always present. The Complainant says he was punctual, polite and willing to do whatever was asked of him when he was present. The Complainant was given the task of preparing invoices and largely left to his own devices in this regard. After three weeks the Complainant was told by the head of the Accounts unit OMK that she was not happy with his work and seemingly pointed to nine mistakes in the 300 invoices he had prepared/dealt with. She indicated that this was unacceptable. The Complainant had understood that his work would have to be subject re-view given how recently he had joined the workforce and he expected that any review would reveal any mistakes he had made. The Complainant never expected that after three weeks the Employer would determine that his performance (based on the nine mistakes) was determined to be beyond remedy/intervention. In fact, the Complainant stated that the mistakes were not of an accounting nature and had more to do with formatting and appearance. Within a week the Complainant was invited to a meeting with Senior management and was advised that the probationary period was being terminated forthwith and that the employment relationship was over. I accept that the Complainant was given no warning that his work performance was putting his position in jeopardy. I accept that the complainant had no idea that the meeting that he was called to, was a meeting with a pre-determined outcome as evidenced by the presentation of a written letter of termination (of which I have had sight). The Complainant was fired without being given any opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to improve and without any opportunity to defend himself. The Grievance process was not open to the Complainant who had been fired. On balance I am satisfied that the Complainant herein was treated most unfairly. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts CA-00030574-001 I recommend that the Respondent pay to the Complainant a once off ex-gratia payment by way of compensation for the loss of livelihood imposed on him in the manner described. I recommend the sum of €1,000.00 be paid to the complainant.
|
Dated: 18/12/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath