Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Bus Driver

A Bus Hire Company

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-00024001-001

11/12/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00024003-001

11/12/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00024006-001

11/12/2018

The complainant withdrew claim CA 24003-001

The complainant takes issue with all of the respondent’s evidence. She is a very careful driver and takes her responsibilities very seriously. Save for one occasion, she was always on time for work, and always did her bus ‘walk around’ prior to her school run. She signed for those ‘walk arounds’ every day. That signature is kept in a logbook in the bus.

The complainant accepts that there were two near misses, one on 27th June ‘17 and one on the 27th November’17. On the 27th June the complainant was approaching a corner when she saw a tractor coming towards her and the driver of the tractor was looking into a ditch and not at the road in front of him. She feared he would come around the corner and drive directly into the bus. She stopped the bus to allow the tractor time to notice her. She was very shaken by the incident and immediately reported it to the respondent. She told the respondent she wanted to report the incident to the Gardaí. The respondent viewed the Dash Cam images and was able to get the registration number of the tractor for her. With that information she reported the matter to the gardaí. She was not given any warnings in relation to the matter.

On the 27th of November, the bus was half full with school children when a cement lorry came flying around a corner. In order to avoid a collision, the complainant pulled the bus as close to the ditch as possible. Unfortunately, the side mirror of the bus hit off a road sign causing damage to it. The lorry did not stop. The complainant was unable to get the registration number of. She immediately reported the incident to the respondent. She was not given a warning for that incident either.

The complainant did text the respondent on the morning of the 25th of September 2018 to notify them that she was ill. She had been ill all day on the Sunday but hoped that it was just a 24-hour bug and that she would be well enough to attend work on the Monday. On the Monday morning she was still very ill, so she texted the respondent at 6:31 a.m.. She kept in touch with the respondent all week and informed them that she had been to see the doctor and was certified unfit for work for the week. Then she received a text from the respondent dismissing her from her employment.

The complainant has tried to get work since October 2018. Her husband's accountant did out a curriculum vitae for her. She has handed it into numerous hotels and nursing homes. She has also registered with FAS. She has managed to get some casual work filling in for drivers with another bus company. She has worked approximately 5 days since her dismissal.

The complainant commenced her employment with the respondent on the 20th of September 2017. She was employed as a school bus driver. The agreed rate of pay was €250 gross per week for 12 hours work.

The complainant was issued two verbal warnings during her employment. One for speeding and one for failure to produce her CPC training certificate. The respondent also had to speak to the complainant on two separate occasions when the complainant had what could be described as, near misses, with other motor vehicles. The complainant was also consistently late which meant that she could not carry out her morning bus inspection prior to starting her school run.

On the 25th of September 2018. The owner’s son received a text message at 7 a.m. from the complainant stating that she was unable to come into work due to an illness. That left the respondent in a very difficult situation as they had numerous children to collect to bring to school one hour later. The complainant was certified sick for that week. During that week the respondent considered whether or not the complainant should remain on in the respondent entity and concluded that she had to be dismissed. He texted her to tell her that her employment was being terminated. It is accepted that there was no investigation in relation to the various disciplinary issues outlined by the respondent. It is accepted that there was no disciplinary hearing in relation to the issues. The complainant was not given a right to appeal the decision to dismiss her.

CA 24001-001 ( Unfair Dismissal)

Having carefully considered the evidence of both parties and the documentation submitted, I am satisfied that the respondent dismissed the complainant in the absence of any investigation or any disciplinary process whatsoever. The complainant was denied her right to fair procedures. It is on that basis that I find that the claim for unfair dismissal succeeds.

In all of the circumstances I am find that compensation is the most appropriate award. I am awarding the complainant the sum of €5, 000.00

CA 24006-001 ( Minimum Notice)

Section 4—(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of 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 employment 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 am also satisfied that the complainant was not paid in lieu of notice and therefore she is entitled to one week’s notice amounting to €250.00

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

CA 24006-001

The claim succeeds. I award the complainant € 250.00

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.

CA 24001 -001

The claim succeeds I award the complainant € 5000.00