Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A CCTV Static Guard

A Security Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00002398-001

04/02/2016

The Complainant alleged he had to leave his employment due to the conduct of his employer and was constructively dismissed.

The Complainant commenced work in March 2010 on a part time casual basis. He was in continuous employment with the Respondent until he resigned on September 16th 2015. He normally worked 5 hours per week and earned 10.75 Euros per hour.

The Complainant was normally assigned to duties at rugby matches in the same stadium.

The Complainant was also completing a degree in Human Resources and driving a taxi in the evening/night to fund his studies.

He was assigned to work at a building site and this conflicted with his commitments to drive the taxi. He called his Supervisor regarding the situation.

He was then assigned to other events at the rugby stadium and didn’t expect that he would be assigned to them. He attended an event but had to leave at 6pm to attend to his other commitments. He said this was normally acceptable for part time staff. He suspected he was “set up” for this shift to conflict with his other commitments.

He tried to contact his Supervisor about the schedule, but he was not available and he spoke to another Supervisor, Ms. Y, and was told the schedule was fixed. He told her he needed two days to attend exams and he was still scheduled in for that time.

He was not paid for time he spent in another location in County Limerick and it took him several months to get paid. He said this was normal practice. He got upset over this.

He was assigned to the Control room of another football grounds and there was a health and safety incident with a visiting supporter, where a colleague left the Supporter out an inappropriate gate and he was attacked by a home supporter outside the ground. When the Garda investigating the issue sought to see the person exiting the ground on CCTV the Complainants Supervisor was gesturing to him confidentially not to show the video. He was banned from the Control Room duties after that incident and the nephew of the Supervisor was put in instead of him.

He was often left alone in the Control Room when there should have been two people due to variety of the duties involved.

He was not being paid on time.

He decided he had to hand in his notice and he met Respondent staff to try and find a resolution. His resignation was not accepted by the Respondent on September 24th, 2015.

He could not wait to exhaust the grievance procedure as the Respondent was being malicious in delaying the process for months. It took five months for the process and it was going nowhere.

The events took place over several years and he could not continue in employment and he was being treated unfairly and had to leave the Company.

The Respondent appeared at the Hearing on July 11th 2016 but no submission was made to the Hearing due to the circumstances outlined below. The Respondent, through an external Representative, submitted a document in advance of that Hearing but this was not heard at the first Hearing.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing on September 9th 2019. A number of issues need to be documented reading the circumstances and communications to the Respondent in this case. Firstly, the WRC received a Complainat form on February 4th 2016. Hearings to hear the claim were arranged for April 19th 2016 and May 26th 2016 which were both postponed, one at the request of the Respondent.

A further Hearing for this purpose was arranged for July 7th 2016. The Respondent was present at that hearing. At the commencement of the Hearing the Complainant appeared very agitated and stressed and the Adjudicator, in consultation with both parties, decided that the Complainant was not fit to conduct himself at the Hearing due to his medical condition. The Hearing was adjourned after a short number of minutes. The Complainant had opened his contribution and the Respondent had not yet replied.

The WRC attempted to set up further Hearings and prior to the Hearing scheduled for February 2nd 2017 the WRC received a Doctors Certificate, dated January 24th 2017, stating the Complainant was “not fit to attend a WRC Hearing due to stress and anxiety”. That Hearing was then postponed.

Further Hearings were scheduled by the WRC for November 12th 2018, February 18th 2019 and March 15th 2019. Each was postponed for various reasons. Most of these Hearings was postponed because the Complainant submitted a medical certificate to say he was unfit to attend the Hearing.

On October 10th 2018 the WRC received an email from the Respondents Representative stating they were no longer representing the Respondent.

A letter to the Respondent was returned to the WRC undelivered and the WRC wrote to a different address on file on April 18th 2019 for the Respondent to seek clarity of their address but no reply was received.

A Hearing was set for September 9th 2019. The Complainant attended the Hearing. The Respondent was not present. The WRC wrote twice to the Respondent informing them of the date of the Hearing. The letters were returned by An Post stating either “gone away” or “insufficient address” and In these circumstances the WRC policy is to proceed with the Hearing.

I satisfied myself, on the day of the Hearing, that the address on the Complaint form matched the address on the notification letters sent to the Respondent and that it also matched the address on the Respondents Group Headquarters Web site.

The Complainant set out four key grounds for resigning and claiming constructive dismissal. Firstly, being instructed not to show the Garda a video relevant to an investigation, secondly delays in payment of wages, thirdly being assigned to a roster that he could not attend due to other commitments and finally being reassigned to other duties and being replaced by the Supervisors nephew in his role.

The Complainant earned a total of 4,008 Euros 2014 and 1,390 Euros in 2013.

Having considered the uncontested evidence of the Complainant in this case I find that he has put forward sufficient grounds for a decision of constructive and unfair dismissal. I award the Complainant 4,000 Euros. This amount reflects the fact that he did not fully exercise the grievance procedure and his contribution to not mitigating his loss.

Constructive Dismissal