ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017454
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Accommodation Supervisor | Hotel |
Representatives |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00022479-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant worked as an Accommodation Supervisor with the respondent hotel from February 8th, 2008 to the date of dismissal, on June 6th, 2018. It was the complainant’s contention that she was unfairly dismissed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant’s case is that she was unfairly dismissed. This is reflected in the fact that: (i) the respondent’s key decision maker (and General Manager) in the process failed to attend to give evidence (and be available for cross-examination) at the hearing on Nov. 15th, 2019; (ii) the pace of proceedings was inappropriate - between a meeting between the claimant and management, giving rise to the issuance of a dismissal letter on the same day; (iii) related to (ii) above, the respondent failed to adhere to its own disciplinary policy and procedure and the principles of natural justice (as provided for in Statutory Instrument No. 146, 2000); (iv) the failure to convene a disciplinary hearing in respect of issue(s) that gave rise to the dismissal; (v) the respondent’s formal/written acknowledgement of the claimant’s status as a ‘valued and experienced’ staff member and (vi) the respondent’s inappropriate handling of the claimant’s data protection request. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent noted that they had experienced ‘many and repeated difficulties’ with the claimant, in respect of her conduct, professionalism and attitude. It was alleged that she repeatedly ‘picked arguments with staff’ and was ‘recording these discussions without the consent of the people present’. Further to appropriately convened meetings (incl. an appeal hearing) – which resulted in the issuance of a written warning – the claimant made a data protection request (for her employment file). Arising therefrom, it’s alleged that the claimant was recording conversations with the General Manager without her consent. At a management meeting on June 5th, 2018, a meeting took place when it was decided that ‘all trust and confidence’ in the claimant ‘had broken down’. Given her ‘unacceptable, unprofessional and provocative conduct’, management decided that ‘it was necessary to terminate her employment’. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant was unfairly dismissed in a ‘summary dismissal’ fashion. Notably, the failure of the respondent’s key decision maker (and General Manager) to attend to give evidence (and be available for cross-examination) at the W.R.C. hearing; the rushed decision making process on June 5th, 2018, together with the respondent’s failure to provide evidence of adherence to its own disciplinary policy and procedure and the principles of natural justice (as provided for in Statutory Instrument No. 146, 2000) and the respondent’s formal/written acknowledgement of the claimant’s status as a ‘valued and experienced’ staff member in a letter from the General Manager to the claimant less than a month before the dismissal, all weigh against the respondent’s claim that it was a fair dismissal. The compensation sum reflects the (12 week) duration that the claimant was out of work. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) 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.
The claim is upheld and a sum of €5,280 is awarded in compensation. |
Dated: November 28th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal |