ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00022657

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Data Analyst	Health Care Services Company

Representatives

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts	CA-00029398-001	01/07/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/10/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.

Having confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts and Having conducted the Investigation as described in Section 13, I, as the so appointed Adjudication Officer, am bound to make a recommendation which will set forth my opinion on the merits of the within dispute.

Under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, any party may object to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer of the dispute raised in the complaint form. The Respondent employer must indicate any such objection in writing within 21 days of the notification of the dispute raised in the workplace relations complaint form. In the event that the Employer does not indicate an unwillingness to have this matter dealt with by way of Adjudicator investigation, the Employer will be regarded as having given consent.

Background:

The Complainant says he was unfairly dismissed when his employment was terminated on or about the 29th of January 2019. The Complainant had only been with the company as a Data Analyst since in and around September of 2018

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant seeks relief under the Industrial Relations legislation, where he is in dispute with his Employer concerning the manner of his dismissal.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent and I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date for hearing at the address provided.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have carefully considered the oral evidence of the Complainant herein. The Complainant gave an account of his history with the Respondent company which was consistent with the statement provided in his Complaint form.

It should be note that the Respondent did not attend by way of representation or in-house personnel or management and that therefore the evidence I heard has not been challenged, and in those circumstances (and taking into account the Complainant’s demeanour) I am happy to accept the Complainant’s account as being a true and honest account.

There can be no doubt that the Complainant was treated very badly by this Employer which allowed a senior member of its staff - a Ms. G - to orchestrate a dismissal without any scrutiny or inquiry. For reasons unexplained, the Complainant’s line Manger Ms. G formed a personal animosity against the Complainant who had not been with the company that long. Rather than work through any perceived issue she might have had with him, Ms G forced him out through a disciplinary process which was without foundation or fairness.

I do find it surprising that a company this big and operating in the space of healthcare would have such woefully inadequate HR processes. It is clear on the evidence provided that the Complainant reached out for assistance to at least two separate persons in the Company framework but that his approaches were rebuffed, and he was forced to attend a disciplinary meeting where the outcome (of employment termination) was undoubtedly pre-determined.

I have no reason to believe that the Employee herein was not capable and performing his duties in accordance with expectations. He was certainly not provided with evidence to the contrary. The Complainant was given no opportunity to defend himself or present his side of the narrative.

The Complainant was dismissed in a summary manner without justification and without any regard for his rights or the principles of fair play.

I understand that the Complainant has found alternative employment since the termination of his employment with the Respondent company.

Decision:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00029398-001 It is my recommendation that the Employer herein pay the lump sum of €10,000.00 by way of compensation for the remunerative losses which the Complainant sustained as a result of the manner and time of dismissal. I further recommend that this payment be made within six weeks of issuing this recommendation.

Dated: 27th November 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath