ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018089
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Area Manager | An Optician |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00023318-001 | 18/11/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00023318-002 | 18/11/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/02/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complainant was employed by the respondent between May 1st, 2016 and either October 3rd (per his P45) or November 15th 2018, the last day on which he worked. He was paid a salary of €3333.33 per month. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant received an email from a solicitor on November 11th which referred to an investigation being conducted but which also enclosed his P45. At that point there were outstanding salary payments due to him for part of September, and all of October and up to that date in November. A late payment of €1,500 was received for September on October 12th. There had been an earlier agreement that his position was to be made redundant on December 31st, 2018. He seeks compensation for the loss of earnings resulting from the termination of his employment and also seeks payment of salary due to him. He has not succeeded in gaining employment since. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was represented by a non-executive director who had not, until sometime prior to the events which gave rise to the case have a direct involvement with the company on a day to day basis. However, he became aware of very substantial financial problems in the company. He had a discussion with his fellow directors and it was agreed that initially administrative staff within the company should either be terminated or outsourced. He consulted his solicitors who issued the letter to the complainant and others on October 3rd. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The letter of November 15th which the complainant received is an intriguing piece of correspondence. It is hard to know what was in the minds of its author, who, it must be borne in mind was a solicitor. (In the manner of such letters it is not signed with the author’s name, but signed only with the name of the firm, although the ‘Our Reference’ bears the initials of the firm’s Principal). There is little doubt that the purpose of the letter was to terminate the complainant’s employment. The P45 was enclosed and while this is not always an indication of the termination of employment, it clearly was on the facts in this case. But this was preceded by a series of what can only be described as bizarre questions, given that it came from an agent of the respondent; the employer of the person to whom it was addressed. For example, it asked the recipient to state, ‘the name of the entity you say you were employed by’, and ‘the start and end dates of any alleged employment’, ‘the title of your alleged employment’, and ‘to furnish a copy of your alleged employment contract’. These references to ‘alleged’ employment etc were addressed to a person who had been employed by the respondent for two and a half years, at that point. The complainant says he only became certain of his position when he learned from the Revenue Online website that his employment status with the respondent had been marked as terminated with effect from October 3rd. By any view of it, this was a termination of employment lacking in any degree of procedural fairness, or other justification and it is an unfair dismissal in breach of the Unfair Dismissal Act at the egregious end of the spectrum of gravity. I accept the complainant’s evidence that he is due wages for part of September, October and up to November 15th (less a payment made in September) This is some eleven weeks (less two days). I must also deduct the €1500 paid. While this latter payment was made net of tax it is not possible for me to assess precisely the gross payment represented by this, so I am treating it as two weeks’ pay; leaving nine weeks (less two days) outstanding; an amount of €7166, (€7499 less €333). |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
I uphold complaint CA-000023318-001 and award the complainant €7166.00. I uphold complaint CA-000023318-002 and award the complainant €5,000.00. |
Dated: 01-05-2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Payment of Wages, Unfair Dismissal |