Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A food company manager.

A food company.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00028995-001

12/06/2019

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent for approximately 8 weeks when he was dismissed. He says that he is not aware of the reasons for his dismissal.

The Complainant says he was employed by the Respondent, on a contract of employment, as a multi-unit manager in the Respondent’s chain of food outlets.

He says that after three weeks the Respondent implemented changes to his contracted position, without consultation

In the meantime he says that he had received multiple complaints from staff, reporting to him, in relation to unpaid hours. He passed these on to payroll for processing but says that such shortages in the pay of employees and his own pay, led to frustration on the part of employees.

He says that after this he was summoned to a meeting following a complaint from the Respondent that he was not delivering on his job responsibilities within the deadlines imposed. There was no detail produced to support this assertion.

He says that he was demoted, by letter from the Respondent, from being Area Manager to Assistant Manager, with 2 weeks notice of the change and then summoned to a meeting on the 30^th March 2019. He says that he was unable to attend due to illness. He was advised, in writing that, at this meeting,

He says he was then presented with a “probationary dismissal letter”.

He says that he performed his job very well in the short period of employment with the Respondent and is at a loss to understand why he was dismissed.

He is seeking reasons for the unfair dismissal and the threatening behaviour of the Director and Financial controller of the Respondent Company together with compensation for the poor communication with him, the total lack of fair procedure and the unfair dismissal, without a hearing by the Respondent.

He says that when he received the summons to the meeting, he received it on the 29^th March 2019, to attend the meeting the following day, the 30^th March 2019. He says that he was off work due to certified illness. He says that the Respondent went ahead, anyway, and made the decision to dismiss him. He says that they did so by letter of the 2^nd April 2019 which says:

           “Further to the probation review meeting which was scheduled on 30-03-2019. Our management team had waited until 12pm in our Swords branch for you. As you didn’t turn up we didn’t get any responses from your side till date. I am writing to confirm my decision

As you are aware, when you started work with us, we had high hopes and expectations that you would meet the standards we require. Unfortunately, this has not proved to be the case.

You will recall from our letter of the 19^th March 2019 that the company offered you a further opportunity to demonstrate your suitability by offering a progression period. Unfortunately, the company has not seen the immediate the immediate and sustained improvement that it was seeking and having considered the above points we have reached the conclusion that you have failed to demonstrate your suitability for your role during your probationary period.

It is with regret that I confirm that your employment is terminated with immediate effect. In view of the fact that you have less than 2 months service you will not be entitled to notice pay.

I will arrange for any accrued holiday pay to be paid through your bank account”

He says that the letter of the 29^th March 2019, inviting him to this meeting outlined a range of “possible outcomes””. The letter said they were “termination of your employment, extension of your probationary period or, in some cases, the offer of alternative employment”. Notwithstanding these options they chose dismissal without hearing the Complainants side.

The Respondent did not appear but did send the completed form objecting to the hearing of this case by an Adjudication officer.

The Respondent is entitled to object to a case taken by a Complainant under the Industrial Relations Act but must lodge this objection within 21 days of being advised by the WRC of the case being processed.

The objection fell outside the 21-day window, leaving the case open to adjudication by me.

Having reviewed the Complainant’s evidence I find that:

He moved from his home in Athlone to take up this role in Belfast.

He appears to have received little support in resolving the shortages in the wages of staff, that were brought to his attention. In fact, he seems to be blamed for these complaints. He did not have access, at his location, to Payroll and staff were employed by one of two entities for which he was required to have written permission to deal with.

When the Respondent met with him to discuss performance on March 19^th, 2019 they concluded by arranging a “progression period” during which they planned to review his performance. Within 10 days they had taken the decision to dismiss the Complainant. I am not convinced that there really was an opportunity for the Complainant to “improve”.

The letter of the 29^th March 2019 arranging the meeting with the Complainant, in listing the range of possible outcomes, has dismissal as first on the list.

There seemed to be a rushing to dismissal without fair process. The meeting went ahead even though the Complainant was absent from work due to certified illness. The doctrine “audi alteram partem” was ignored, I believe, unnecessarily so.

There was a deliberate lack of fairness in the process and I find that the Complainant should be compensated for this and the manner in which he was treated generally, by the Respondent.

I recommend that the Complainant be paid the sum of €3,000 by the Respondent.