Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Construction Worker

Construction Company

Representatives

  Self

 No Appearance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00027517-001

02/04/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00027517-002

02/04/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00027517-003

02/04/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00027517-004

02/04/2019

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 17 August 2018 as an experienced operative on a construction site.  The dispute / complaint is in relation to the events which resulted in the termination of employment of the complainant in February 2019.

The complainant was not due to work on Saturday, 9 February 2019 but was contacted by the foreman and opened the site but then returned home.

The complainant locked the site later that morning but then got calls and texts from the foreman about not showing up for work.

When the complainant reported for work on the following Monday he was verbally abused by the foreman and advised to go home by the site engineer.

Several days later the engineer told the complainant to report for work but when he did the foreman would not allow him to commence work.  The complainant had to leave the site.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent and no submission was received from the respondent.

The complainant, in submitting his complaints to the WRC on 2 April 2019, had mistakenly filed two complaints under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and a further two complaints under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.  He therefore withdrew Complaint No. CA-00027517-002 under the Industrial Relations Act and Complaint No. CA-00027517-004 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.  I have been advised by the secretariat that the notices in respect of this case were sent to the correct address.  I am therefore satisfied that the respondent was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaints would be held.

The complainant stated in evidence that he was an experienced building worker who had commenced employment with the respondent in August 2018 on a site that was near his home.  On Saturday, 9 February 2019, it had been arranged that instead of working on the site the complainant would get a defect on his phone fixed as it contained information relating to work on the site and required by the respondent.

Early that morning the complainant received a phone call from the site foreman requesting that he open the site for which he had the keys.  The complainant duly opened the site but did not do any work on it.  Some hours later, about mid-morning, the foreman contacted the complainant again asking that he lock up.  The complainant again complied with that request.  That afternoon the complainant noticed that he had received a lot of calls from the foreman and these were followed by abusive texts regarding the complainant not going to work that day and other work-related issues.

On Monday 11 February the complainant reported for work but was met by the foreman who began to verbally abuse him.  The site engineer then arrived and instructed the complainant to commence work.  The complainant had forgotten his shoes and told the engineer that he would return in a few minutes.  Whilst he was away the complainant received a phone call from the engineer requesting that he meet him at a nearby filling station.  The engineer asked the complainant to explain what was going on and showed him texts that the foreman had sent to a senior manager who in turn had forwarded them to the engineer.  The result of this conversation was that the engineer told the complainant to take the rest of the day off.  Several days in fact passed before the complainant was contacted by the engineer and told to report for work on the Thursday.  When the complainant arrived at the site he met the foreman who again verbally abused him and ordered him off the site.  The complainant waited outside until the engineer arrived and accompanied him to the office.  The engineer attempted to mediate between the complainant and the foreman but the latter was adamant that the complainant was not allowed on site.  The complainant stated that he had also overheard remarks from other workers to the effect that the complainant had been dismissed because of theft.  The outcome was that the complainant was then told by the foreman not to return to the site.  The complainant had no alternative but to consider himself dismissed.

A meeting subsequently took place with a Director of the respondent but nothing specific was agreed at that meeting.  The complainant had applied for jobs since the termination of his employment but had not got them.  The complainant said that the fact that he had not got a car limited his options in this regard.

Complaint No. CA-00027517-001:

This is a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  No objection in writing to the hearing of the dispute was received from the respondent.

Based on the evidence before me it would appear that there was a difference in understanding between the complainant and the foreman as regards whether the complainant should have been working on site on the Saturday in question.  That said, it would seem that the foreman used abusive language in his communications with the complainant on Saturday afternoon.  Additionally, the actions of the foreman on the Monday coupled with the refusal to allow the complainant back on the site on Thursday were actions that were carried out without any recourse to the utilisation of proper policies or procedures and culminated in the factual dismissal of the complainant.  I must conclude therefore that the termination of employment of the complainant in these circumstances amounted to an unfair dismissal.

Taking all factors into account I believe compensation is the appropriate remedy in this case.  I therefore recommend that the respondent pays and the complainant accepts the sum of €12,500.00 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

Complaint No. CA-00027517-002:

This complaint was withdrawn at hearing.

Complaint No. CA-00027517-003:

This is a complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.  From the evidence before me I conclude that the complainant was dismissed without notice.  Section (4) of the Act states:

(1)    An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2)    The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of his employee shall be –

(a)    If the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week…

I therefore find this complaint to be well founded and I order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €1,091.60 as compensation in this regard.

Complaint No. CA-00027517-004:

This complaint was withdrawn at hearing.