ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00021940

Parties: 

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  11/09/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) 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).

Ca-00028707-001` 002

Unfair Dismissal

Background

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on the 1st August 2014 as a full-time sales assistant and he was paid 10.55 per hour.

Respondents Position

The respondent submitted that on the 12th of February 2019 the claimant entered the back office and printed off 54 separate documents that were private and confidential. The respondent supplied a list of documents that were printed off.

It was submitted that the claimant was not asked to print off these documents at any stage nor did he have the authority to do so. A supervisor entered the back office on the 12^th February 2019 and noticed the printer was printing a high volume of paper. It was stated that the claimant proceeded to take the documents and put then mini folder and left the office with them.

The claimant was questioned for an explanation as to why private and confidential contracts and respondent sensitive information had been printed. The claimant was requested to return all documentation that was printed. The claimant requested that the documents be shredded and asked the supervisor not to notify the respondent's senior management or else he “might as well hand in his notice at that time”.

Having sought advice, the claimant was suspended on full pay pending an investigation. The claimant was given a letter confirming his suspension and was requested to attend an investigation meeting on the 15th of February 2019.

On the day of the investigation meeting, the claimant outlined that he would not be partaking in the investigation process. Despite being encouraged to proceed with the process the claimant handed over a resignation letter and announced that he was resigning with immediate effect.

The respondent submitted that the claimant was not dismissed from their employment. It was submitted that the claimant took the decision to resign his employment and furnished the respondent with a letter of resignation.

The claimant was at no time given a disciplinary letter as outlined in his complaint, he was called to an investigation meeting on foot of serious allegations.

The purpose of the investigation meeting was to gather information and give the claimant an opportunity to respond to the alleged allegations outlined in the investigation letter

The claimant did not follow the procedures as outlined in his contract of employment

The respondent stated they had not dismissed the claimant.

Claimant’s position

The claimant submitted that when he was approached by the respondent manager on 13 February 2019 at 9.30 am and handed a letter, he was told by the manager that he would be fired. The respondent categorically denied such a statement was made. The claimant stated that his job was advertised on job.ie so, therefore, he knew that he was going to be fired.

The claimant further stated that this was a genuine mistake, misunderstanding and lack of communication.

The claimant stated that he was acting under instructions from his manager and that when he attended the investigated meeting he was surprised to see the same Manager present with a person from the Hr department. 

Findings

I find that there is no dispute between the parties on the printing of the 54 documents.

I find that the claimant stated that he was printing off documents, left the print station to do other work and when he came back all the documents had been printed off.

I find the respondent stated that such documents could not be printed without an instruction being given to the printer and what documents were to be printed.

I find that the respondent had a right to investigate the issue in accordance with their procedures.

I find that at the investigation meeting the claimant stated that he would not partake and handed in a letter of resignation.

I find that the respondent  regularly recruit for both stores  in the area.

I find that the claimant believed he was going to be fired. However, I find he should have followed the internal procedures which were part of his contract of employment. I find that by resignation and not cooperating with due process and he was denying himself the right to fair procedures.

Decision

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 find that the claimant resigned his position and his claim for Unfair dismissal falls.

CA-00028707-003

 Industrial Relations Act, 1969

Background

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on the 1st August 2014 as a full-time sales assistant and he was paid 10.55 per hour.

Findings

I find that the points raised have been already been dealt with under the Unfair Dismissal complaint

Recommendation

I find that the claimant resigned his position.

Dated:   13^th November 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Jim O'Connell

Key Words: