ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017219
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A contract cleaner | A contract cleaning company |
Representatives | Self | Company management |
Complaint(s):
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-00022314-001 | 02/10/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00022314-002 | 02/10/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00022314-003 | 02/10/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/01/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
Background:
The Complainant is employed as a contract cleaner by the Respondent Contract Cleaning Company, her employment with the Respondent commenced, via a TUPE transfer in May 2004. The Complainant was dismissed on 02/10/2018. The complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 02/10/2018. The Complaint is in three parts: 1. Referred under section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977. 2. Referred under section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act,1973. 3. Referred under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed in a contract for many years and when the contract was lost she was transferred to a cleaning contract in a school where she worked a week on/week off basis. After a few weeks at the new contract the Complainant received a telephone call from the Respondent owner of the company informing her that “things were not working out” with the week on / week off arrangement and he would have to let her go. He also mentioned that he had received a complaint about her work that a small kitchen area had not been cleaned. The Complainant contends that she was never informed that this small kitchen area had to be cleaned. The Complainant feels that a complaint of this nature does not merit instant dismissal. The Complainant contends that she was not offered alternative work or a redundancy payment. The Complainant points to the fact that she was given no notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent is a small cleaning company and accepted the Complainant transferring to the Respondent company when a contract was won. The client at the school contacted the Respondent to complain about the cleaning standards when the Complainant was working and followed up on this by sending photographs of the areas post cleaning. There were also some comments made by the client in relation to the Complainant being missing when she supposed to be in work i.e. she was leaving before the allocated finishing time. The Respondent owner found himself in a situation in which he had to either remove the Complainant from the contract or risk losing the contract. This type of situation is common within the industry. The Respondent informed the Complainant of this course of events and informed her that he would have to let her go as things were “not working out”. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent found himself in a situation that companies involved in contracted services often find themselves in i.e. removing a person from a contract or risk losing the contract. In order to maintain the contract, the Respondent, having no other available contract in which to place the Complainant, dismissed her from employment. Whilst I understand the reasons for the Respondent’s actions I have no alternative but to conclude that the complaint as submitted by the Complainant is well founded and that she was unfairly dismissed. I note the Complainant was unemployed for a period of one week. I award the Complainant the following; 1. CA-00022314 – 001. – Five weeks’ pay for the Unfair Dismissal and Loss of Earnings, this equates to a total of €780.00. 2. CA – 00022314 – 002. – Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act,1973. The Complainant’s employment commenced on 01/05/2004 and ended on 02/10/2018, a total of 14.5 years. Under this legislation she should have been given 6 weeks’ notice. I award the sum of €936.00 representing payment in lieu of this notice. 3. CA – 00022314 – 003. This complaint relates to annual leave entitlement accrued up to the date of dismissal. Neither the Respondent or the Complainant were in a position to provide particulars to the hearing. I now order the Respondent to check their records and if there should be an outstanding balance to make payment for same to the Complainant within 42 days. The sums awarded to the Complainant should be treated as remuneration and be made within 42 days from the date of this decision. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
As outlined above. |
Dated: 17th January, 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal. |