ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018827
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A chef | A Restaurant |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00024181-002 | 17/12/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00024182-002 | 17/12/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/05/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the disputes.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The worker started working for the respondent at the end of July, 2018. He was placed on a trial period. During that time, he was only asked to fry certain foods. The respondent stated that they wanted him to learn how to make noodles. In order to teach him, they sent down a female individual to show him how it is done. When he tried to do it himself, he found that the noodles were not coming out of the machine correctly. After making enquiries he was informed by his supervisor that he was using the incorrect oil. When he rectified the situation, the machine worked properly which resulted in correctly made noodles. In relation to his holidays, he sent a text to his supervisor on the 6th September, 2018 notifying them that he was taking from the 16/9 to the 20/9 off to go abroad. The worker accepts that he was told if he did go, he would be replaced. He went anyway. The worker found a job four weeks after he returned from his holiday. He is paid more now than he was when working for the respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
When the worker was interviewed, he indicated to the respondent that he had the various skills required to carry out the role. It became apparent very quickly after he started that he did not possess those skills. For example, he was shown how to make noodles, but despite being taught, he was still unable to do make them. Furthermore, he sent a text to the respondent after a few weeks of starting work, saying that he had booked a holiday and was heading off. The respondent had nobody to cover him and told him that if he went, he would have to be replaced. He did go. He was replaced. The respondent is not on notice of any payment of wages type claim. However, having spoken to the worker, the respondent will make enquiries from the company accountants. If any payments are due to the worker that payment will be made forthwith. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In relation to the unfair dismissal part of the worker’s complaint, I am satisfied that the dismissal was fair in all of the circumstances. Therefore, I am not making a recommendation. In relation to the allegation of an underpayment, I am recommending that the respondent’s approach be adopted and that their accountants should carry out an investigation to establish whether or not there is a payment due to the worker. If a payment is due, it should be paid within one week from the date the investigation is completed. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Having completed its investigation, if a payment is due, it should be paid within one week from the date the investigation is completed. |
Dated: 11/06/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Key Words:
|