Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Pest Control Technician

A Pest Control Company

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-00015798-001

14/11/2017

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

CA-00015798-002

14/11/2017

The complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Pest Control Technician from 6th January 2014 until 11th August 2017. The complainant was paid €32,543.00 per annum. The complaint relates to alleged Unfair Dismissal and the non-payment of Notice relating to the termination of the complainant’s employment.

The complainant submitted an identical complaint (ADJ 000-11894) based on the same facts but relating to a different entity. That complaint was not pursued at the Adjudication hearing.

The respondent stated that the complainant was not dismissed. The respondent stated that the possibility of the business being sold as a going concern arose in or around May 2017. The respondent stated that at the time, it became apparent that the complainant was involved in other enterprises within the same business type and had informed the prospective buyer of this. The respondent stated that this effectively ceased the negotiations and the sale of the business did not take place. The respondent stated that the complainant was subject to an investigative process as a result of the declared conflict of interests and a meeting was arranged with him. The respondent stated that the complainant ultimately sought redundancy from the employment and when this was refused, he simply left the employment and returned his van and tools. The respondent stated that the complainant subsequently sought a letter confirming the details of the dismissal which the respondent provided in good faith as it would assist the complainant in his application for Jobseekers Benefit. The respondent contends that the complainant had a competing business in place and resigned from his employment, subsequently applying for Jobseekers Benefit and payment of the Short-Term Enterprise Allowance.  

The complainant stated that he was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The complainant contends that he had registered a similar business to that of the respondent but that it had never traded. The complainant also stated that the respondent accepted around the time of the investigative meeting in June 2017 that there was no conflict in relation to the complainant’s involvement in the related businesses.

The complainant contends that following the investigative meeting in June 2017, he received no further correspondence on the issues until he received a letter of termination dated 11th August 2017.

The complainant stated that he wrote to the respondent seeking a reason for his dismissal on 15th August 2017 and received a response requesting confirmation of his resignation. The complainant stated that he did not resign from his employment as is evidenced by the letter of termination he received on 11th August 2017.

The complainant is seeking compensation in relation to his complaint.

In relation to this complaint I find as follows:

The parties are in dispute and have given directly conflicting evidence in relation to the cessation of the complainant’s employment. The respondent stated that the complainant resigned, and the complainant stated that he was dismissed by the respondent.

Having carefully considered the written and verbal submissions of both parties, I have concluded that the complaint is not well founded as the legal entity named as the respondent in this complaint was not incorporated until 27th September 2017 and the complainant’s employment ceased prior to this date. I find that the letter of termination provided by the complainant related to another entity that is not the respondent in this case.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that as the respondent was not the complainant’s employer at the time of dismissal, the complaint is not well founded. Accordingly, the complaint fails.

The complainant contends that he was dismissed without notice from his employment. The complainant stated that as he had worked for the respondent since 2014 he was entitled to receive two weeks’ notice of the termination of his employment.

The respondent stated that the complaint is without merit as the complainant resigned from his employment.

Having found that the respondent in this complaint was not the complainant’s employer at the material time and having found Complaint Application CA-00015798-001 above to be not well founded, I also find that this complaint cannot succeed.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I declare that the complaint is not well founded.