ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Sales Assistant | A Fuel Distributor and Retailer |
Representatives |
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00027205-001 | ||
CA-00027205-002 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced her first period of employment with the respondent in November 2017 and this terminated in September 2018 when she left following an accident at work. She returned in November 2018 and her contract of employment was terminated on February 25th 2019. Although she worked hard she experienced abusive conduct from another staff member and despite making a complaint about it nothing was done. On the day of the termination she mentioned to her manager that she had injured her finger at work some days earlier. Later that same day, around 4pm she was invited to come to the Manager’s office and told not to come to work the following day as her contract had been terminated. There was reference made to a customer complaint of over a month earlier but about which she had been told nothing. She had not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings or a warning. She brought the matter to the attention of her Area Manager who replied a few days later saying that she had been let go because she was on probation. Her second complaint relates to the non-payment of her notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
(The solicitor named above attended only for the purposes of the complaint under the Minimum Notice & terms of Employment Act, 1973) It was submitted that the notice payment had been made and evidence was submitted to this effect. No response was made in relation to the complaint of unfair dismissal. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The facts relating to the dismissal are as set out above. As the respondent did not attend no explanation was available as to whether the conduct of its manager was as alleged, and if so what explained it. (While this was a referral under the Industrial Relations Act the respondent had not objected to a hearing within the required time limits). The explanation given to the complainant regarding the customer complaint lacks any credibility. No indication was given to the complainant as to what the complaint was, or by whom it was made and if it existed at all, the failure of the respondent to act on it for a month tells its own story about the gravity with which it was being treated. That explanation for the complainant’s dismissal may be totally discounted. Turning then to the procedure followed by the respondent the termination of the employment was very peremptory indeed. The requirements of fair procedure are not arduous, and they apply even to a person during a probationary period. In many respects, and at their most basic they represent the importation of principles of basic courtesy and respect into workplace procedures; prior notice of any alleged misconduct, some indication of the range of sanctions that might follow, the right to be accompanied etc. Suffice to say they were totally absent in this case and the termination of the complainant’s employment was entirely unjustified. It was unfair by reference to every single criterion of procedural fairness. There is no excuse for this in any situation, but the respondent is a very large company with a highly developed HR capacity. The recommendation below should serve as a reminder to the respondent to ensure that any of its managers with a responsibility for terminating an employees’ contract of employment understand the standards of fairness they are expected to apply regardless of when that termination is being affected. It was accepted in the course of the hearing that the notice payment had been received. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint/dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons set out above I uphold complaint CA-00027205-001 and recommend payment of €7,500.00 to the complainant. This is compensation for the breach of her rights and is not subject to taxation under Revenue rules relating to decisions of Adjudication Officers. I further recommend that the respondent review any guidelines it issues to local managers insofar as they relate to the termination of employment of probationary employees to ensure that they comply with general standards of fair procedure. I do not uphold complaint CA-00027205-002 and it is dismissed as the notice payment has been made. |
Dated: 29th July 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
Dismissal, fair procedure, probationary period. |