ADJUDICATION OFFICER
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016579
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Stock Control Manager | A Logistics Company |
Complaint:
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-00021577-001 | 05/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/04/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Stock Control Manager from October 2007 until 29th November 2018 having been given three months’ notice of the termination of his employment. The complaint relates to alleged Unfair Dismissal. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Preliminary Point The respondent contends that the complaint submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 5th September 2018 was premature in so far as the complaint was lodged during the three months’ notice period while the complainant was still employed. The respondent submits, therefore that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Substantive Issue The respondent does not accept that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. The respondent stated that the complainant was dismissed in line with the terms of his contract of employment which provides for the termination of his employment on the provision of three months’ notice. The respondent contends that it carried out a review of its operations and the role of Stock Control Manager was no longer required. The respondent stated that the complainant was not replaced and that his duties were distributed amongst other managerial staff. The respondent cited a number of legal cases in support of its decision to dismiss the complainant in line with the terms of his contract of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed. The complainant stated that he received a letter on 29th August 2018 providing him with three months’ notice that his employment was being terminated on 29th November 2018. The complainant stated that he was not given any reasons for his dismissal. The complainant submits that throughout his 12 years of service with the respondent, there were no performance or disciplinary issues and that he had regularly been commended for his performance. The complainant is seeking reinstatement or compensation in relation to his complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Respondent’s preliminary point In relation to the respondent’s preliminary point, I note that in the case of Brady v EAT [2015] E.L.R. 1 the High Courtreferred to the EAT case of Matthews v Sandisk International Limited UD331/2010 which stated as follows: “The Tribunal holds that the filing of a notice in writing with the Tribunal prior to the date of termination of employment and therefore prior to the period of six months beginning on the date of dismissal but not withdrawn prior to the date of termination of employment constitutes the giving of notice in compliance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The Tribunal finds that by leaving the form T1A with the secretariat to the Tribunal prior to the commencement of the statutory period the form was with the secretariat at the commencement of the statutory period and throughout that period. Therefore, the claimant had given notice within the statutory period as well as for an additional period.” I also note that in Redmond on Dismissal Law, Third Edition, 22.78 page 511, Dr D Ryan refers to the High Court decision in “Brady” where the Court stated that: “it would be absurd to find that a claimant should be denied the opportunity to bring a claim for unfair dismissal simply because the adjudicating body had notice of the claim immediately prior to the applicable six-month period.” The High Court also stated in “Brady” that: “giving notice to the Tribunal on one date such that it has notice on another date complies with the requirements of the Acts. On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that the complaint is properly before the WRC for adjudication. Substantive Issue In relation to the substantive issue, the respondent contends that the dismissal of the complainant was a “no fault dismissal” and was in compliance with the terms of his contract of employment. The respondent cited the cases Hughes v MongoDB Limited [2014] IEHC 335, Orr v Zomax (2004) 1 IR 486 and Jean-Philippe Grenet v Electronic Arts Ireland Limited [2018] IEHC, 10641 in support of its position that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. I note the respondent’s position that although standard references are provided, the complainant will be furnished with a positive reference if required. I also note that the legal precedents cited by the respondent relate to common law cases of Wrongful Dismissal brought before the High Court. This complaint is brought to the WRC under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977-2015 which provides that the dismissal is deemed to be unfair unless the respondent can prove otherwise. I note that the dismissal of the complainant was not based on any of the reasons outlined in Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977-2015. Accordingly, I conclude that the complainant was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the legislation. Mitigation of Loss The complainant is in receipt of Jobseekers Benefit and has been unable to secure alternative employment despite undertaking additional training courses and submitting numerous applications to prospective employers since his dismissal. Based on the complainant’s evidence I am satisfied that he has attempted to mitigate his losses as required by the legislation. Redress Having considered the redress options available, I find an award of compensation is appropriate. I consider compensation in the amount of €20,000 to be just and equitable in all of the circumstances of this complaint. |
Decision:
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.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the complaint is well founded. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant €20,000 in compensation. |
Dated: 22/07/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal, Wrongful dismissal |