ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017789
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Driver | A Transport Company |
Representatives | Self represented | Lefre de Burgh |
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-00022911-001 | 29/10/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/05/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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 claims he was unfairly dismissed. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent has a major contract with a supermarket chainstore. In June 2018 they received a phone call from the customer to state that high value goods, amounting to €25,000 had been stolen in the previous few months. This related to items such as electronics and alcohol. CCTV footage was shown to the Respondent and four of the Respondent’s drivers were identified as the culprits. Three of the Drivers fled. The fourth is the Complainant.
The Respondent called the Complainant to an investigation meeting at which the Complainant became aggressive and walked out of the meeting. The Complainant then sought his P45 through his Solicitor, which was issued to him. It is the Respondent’s case that the Complainant walked out of his employment before the disciplinary process was completed and therefore he was not dismissed.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked as a Driver for the Respondent from 10th January 2017 to 4th June 2018. He stated that in or around 4th June 2018, he was sent a text from his manager stating “no work tonight”. He was called to a meeting and told he had been seen taking a pallet of goods off the trailer. The employer told him he could not view the cctv footage of the alleged incident. He received no further work and when he went into the yard in or around 6th July 2018 he was told to “go away”. The Complainant had been making deliveries for the company up to then and could not accept the argument or accusation of the Respondent that he was involved in stealing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I accept the Complainant’s evidence that he did not voluntarily resign from his employment, and that when he presented himself at the Respondent’s premises in or around 6th July 2018 he was told to leave. I note the Respondent’s evidence that they were unable to conduct an investigation or disciplinary hearing as the situation became heated. In normal circumstances, the Employer would have an obligation to advise the Employee in writing of the charge against him and offer the right of reply and representation. However, I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the evidence obtained in relation to the theft was genuine and compelling, and in the circumstances, I find the dismissal was not unfair. I do not find the Complainant’s complaint to be well founded. |
Decision:
I do not find the Complainant’s complaint to be well founded.
Dated: 29/07/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
|