ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019327
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | Bio-Pharma Company |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00025195-001 | 22/01/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Worker alleges he was summarily dismissed by his Employer without proper procedures or any valid reasons given for dismissal. The employment of the complainant was terminated after approximately seven months and therefore he does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Unfair Dismissals Act. He is seeking compensation for the dismissal and the effect it had on him. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker was employed in a very specialised position with a Bio-Pharma Company. He was working normally and performed well in all the performance indices required of the position however he submits that his line manager seemed to be issue with his work for no valid reason. He was working a six-month probationary period in a twenty-three-month fixed term contract. He claims that his line manager Ms X had been critical of his work for no discernible reason. The matter came to a head on November 21st, 2018. On that day he asked his line Manager Ms. X, about whether to place something into a procedure. He claims that Ms X’s demeanour changed for no reason and she said to him that he needed to go home and think about it as this job was not for him and raised doubts about his capabilities, and whether he was cut out for a role planned for him in the New Year. He felt very upset after this meeting and sought counselling. The following morning, he made a complaint to HR regarding Ms. X’s behaviour towards him. He was told by the designated person in HR that HR would help him with processing the complaint through the company’s procedures and would remain independent. He was instructed to meet with his line manager again, as part of procedures. In this following one to one meeting with Ms. X, the worker claims she brought up his probationary period and that he was questioned about his work, though he was the only person in a 6-person team who was producing any physical work. He reported back to HR about what transpired at his meeting with Ms. X. In the next step of the procedure he met with Ms. Y, who was Ms. X’s manager. Ms Y said nothing about investigating his complaint but instead said she would review his work. The worker submits that Ms X kept away from him after this but in a few times there was contact he claims that other colleagues noticed how she questioned every little detail in his work and how she spoke aggressively towards him. On the 10th of December Miss Y met the Worker and told him that his allegations had been dropped against Ms X. She stated to the worker that Ms X does not behave in this way and that his allegation will be thrown out. She then alleged that the worker did not reach the job specs goals with no specific examples having been provided. The worker submits that Ms Y questioned the quality of his work, despite the worker having proof to the contrary of having achieved all that was required of him. He claims that Ms Y stated that he had one month to prove himself in the company. The Worker felt under severe pressure as it was coming up to Christmas and questioned Ms Y as to what he had to achieve in that time span. He claims that Ms Y got very angry at this stage and said in an aggressive manner “pack your bags and get out”. He claims that she threatened him with site security. He submits that when he left the company premises that day he felt humiliated and traumatised by the experience. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer made no appearance to respond to this dispute. I am satisfied that the employer received adequate notice of the time, date and location of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The employment of the worker was terminated after approximately seven months and therefore he does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Unfair Dismissals Act. Nonetheless, a termination of employment requires procedural fairness. Based on the uncontested account of the worker, it seems that no fair procedures were applied and that he was summarily dismissed for what seems to have been very questionable reasons, without recourse to any procedures or enquiry. He describes how he was ordered off the site immediately. He recounts that the experience left him humiliated and demoralised. Based on all the circumstances as described to me in an uncontested account by the worker, I would recommend that the employer would pay him €5,000 for the unfair manner of his dismissal. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I would recommend that the worker be paid €5000 for the unfair manner of his dismissal. |
Dated: 11th November 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Industrial relations, Dismissal |