Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Roger Kennedy

John Mackey Plant Hire

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Machine Driver

Plant Hire business

Representatives

Self represented

Jack Hickey, B.L.

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-00018290-001

04/04/2018

The Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed for refusing to sign the employer’s safety statement. The Complainant worked for the Respondent for in or around 13 years on a 2 day week basis for wages of €160 per week net.

The Complainant stated that he was told to sign a safety statement in March 2018 which he considered to be a false document. He stated that the employer never supplied protective safety measures, such as safety boots, that he did not supply toilet or sanitary facilities and that as an employee, the Complainant had been put at risk while feeding animals in unprotected areas of pens.   The Complainant stated that when he refused to sign the statement, he was subjected to verbal abuse, and was dismissed from his job.

The Respondent’s representative stated that the employer had no option but to not allow the employee on his premises as he would not have been insured, due to the refusal to sign and abide by the safety statement and rules. The allegations in relation to safety breaches are denied.   The animals referred to are mainly 6 month old weanlings and there were sanitary facilities in the employer’s house, near the farm.

The Complainant was dismissed from his employment on 3rd April 2018 on foot of his refusal to sign the employer’s safety statement. I note that no procedures whatsoever were invoked to subject the employee to a disciplinary situation, whereby the actual charge would be put to him, he would be given the right to be heard, to be represented and to appeal the decision to dismiss him. After more than 13 years service he was entitled to at least due process as set down in statutory instrument S.I. 146 of 2000. In the circumstances, I find the actions of the Respondent to have been unreasonable and I uphold the Complainant’s complaint that he was unfairly dismissed.     I find that compensation is the appropriate form of redress. I have been presented with verbal evidence regarding the Complainant’s mitigation of loss and I accept the Complainant’s evidence that he received some casual work since his dismissal. I conclude that the sum of €2,240 is appropriate compensation and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant this sum in compensation for the Complainant’s loss.