Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

Re-cycling company

Representatives

JJ Fitzgerald, Solicitor

Mary O'Brien Williams, Tom Smyth & Associates

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-00018781-001

27/04/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00018781-002

27/04/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00018781-003

27/04/2018

The Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed, that he did not receive minimum notice or pay in lieu and that he did not receive written terms of conditions of employment.

The Complainant stated that he was employed by the Respondent from 27th March 2017 to 9th April 2018 when he was dismissed without notice for allegedly assaulting a fellow employee. The Complainant stated that no such assault took place. He contends that as part of his normal duties, separating out materials, he threw a piece of cardboard across at his colleague. He contends that this was normal practice as instructed. He was called to the office by the manager and was dismissed.   He states that he was not given the allegation in writing and was not afforded the right to be heard or represented. He alleges that the Manager told him he could have his job back if he signed some document. The complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed. In the event that he was unfairly dismissed, he was denied his right to minimum notice or pay in lieu. He further contends that in breach of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, he did not receive a written contract.

The Complainant was dismissed following an incident in which he threw material across the conveyor line at another employee. Following a review of the situation, it was ascertained that following the complainant’s action, the other employee also threw material at the complainant, narrowly missing another (female) employee which could have resulted in a serious eye injury. This behaviour was found to be entirely unacceptable and both employees were dismissed. It is submitted that the Company has obligations in relation to health and safety and could not tolerate such behaviour. It is also submitted, that having dismissed the complainant for gross misconduct, he was not entitled to minimum notice.   In relation to the claim under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, the complainant was given an employee handbook, safety statement, induction and training.

The Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct, having been involved in an altercation in which material was thrown by him at another employee and I note the other employee who retaliated was also dismissed on foot of the same incident.   Clause 7A of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Proceedings states:

“after full investigation, cases of proven misconduct will not be subject to the warning procedure and will result in summary dismissal. The following are some examples of the behaviours which are likely to result in summary dismissal:

Assault or other improper physical or verbal behaviour towards any other person on the company’s premises..”

In circumstances where materials, and in this case it was the respondent’s evidence that it involved   plastic materials, are being separated and re-cycled, the Respondent’s policy of zero tolerance in relation to any form of violent behaviour in the workplace is reasonable. I do not uphold the Complainant’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed and his complaint is not well founded.

The Complainant was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct and his complaint for minimum notice payment is not well founded.

I note the extensive documentation provided to the complainant in relation to employee handbook, health and safety, induction and training. The Labour Court in Hall v Irish Water [2016] E.L.R. 161 stated :

“There can be no doubt that the respondent provided the complainant with all the information that he required in relation to the essential elements of the terms and conditions attaching to his particular employment.”

Having reviewed in particular the extensive employee handbook provided in two languages, I find in this instant case, the complainant was provided with comprehensive information.   While there has been a technical breach of the Act, compensation is not warranted.