ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012469

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/10/2018, 10 January 2019 and 26 March 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Hearings were held on the 10th of January 2019, and 26th of March 2019. Following the meeting of 29th March 2019 the Complainant was provided with an opportunity to provide further evidence in relation to the complaint with regards to email and evidence he wished to rely upon. As this submission was not made by the Complainant a further hearing did not progress. Accordingly, the evidence provided by the parties at the two hearings are relied upon as relevant in this decision.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a Farm Manager from the 5th February 2007 until 16th October 2017 when his employment was terminated following a disciplinary procedure.

The Complaints refer to an unfair dismissal as result of an alleged flawed and biased investigation against the Complainant; to an underpayment of his wages; and to an alleged failure of the Respondent to provide the Complainant with his minimum notice. The Respondent denied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed, that it is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act, or that it is in breach of the Minimum Notice and terms of Employment Act.

Summary of Respondent’s Case Regarding the Unfair Dismissal Complaint:

CA-00016518-001Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The Respondent advised that the Complainant had commenced employment as a Farm Manager on 15th January 2007. It submitted that on 26th May 2016 the Complainant was asked to account for certain work issues and where in the course of that meeting he walked out claiming stress, and he did not return to work until February 2017. It further submitted that during his period of absence the Complainant declined to attend absence management meetings as required under its employment policies, and also refused to attend medical appointments that had been arranged with the company GP.

The Respondent advised that the Complainant made a bullying complaint against his manager shortly after commencement of the Complainant’s sick leave in June 2016. This complaint was investigated in accordance with the company policies and was not upheld.

The Respondent maintained that it progressed with seeking a medical assessment of the Complainant from the time of his absence in May 2016, and where it took some time to get a response from the Complainant. The Respondent submitted some eleven letters it forwarded to the Complainant from 9 June 2016 to 22 August 2016 seeking his co-operation with the sick scheme, and a further two letters of invitation to an absence management meeting on 30 August and 8 September 2016. It maintained that the Complainant did not readily co-operate with its sick scheme and it took some time to have him medically assessed.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was certified fit to return to work on 8 February 2017 and he attended a return to work interview that date. At the conclusion of that interview the Complainant was requested by letter to attend a suspension meeting the following day. In this letter the Respondent set out some nine allegations including allegations that company money was lodged to the Complainant’s personal bank account; the transfer of Respondent’s property without authorisation; the Complainant had received cash payments from suppliers without permission or authorisation; breaches in the Respondent’s Information Technology and Communications Systems Policy; unauthorised absence from work; disobedience of instructions; making unauthorised purchases; carrying out unauthorised work; and failure to comply with the Respondent’s absence management policy. That meeting was held on 9 February 2017 where it was decided to suspend the Complainant, on pay, pending a disciplinary investigation into certain allegations. In the letter of suspension, the Complainant was again advised of the allegations, that he would remain bound by all the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he would receive his normal basic wage for the period of suspension once he cooperated fully with the investigation.

A senior manager was appointed to carry out the disciplinary investigation, and on 5 April 2017 the Complainant was invited to a disciplinary interview planned for 12 April 2017. Included in the letter of 5 April 2017 the Complainant was advised that as the investigation was ongoing, he would be notified of any new allegations which may arise as a result of the investigation. The Complainant attended the meeting on 12 April 2017 and chose not to be represented at this meeting, or at any other disciplinary interviews relating to the investigation despite been given that option.

A further disciplinary interview was arranged for 10 May 2017 but the Complainant failed to attend this meeting. As result of the Complainant’s non-attendance he was informed by letter on 15 May 2017 that his pay while on suspension would be discontinued. A further disciplinary interview was scheduled for 15 June 2017 and was attended by the Complainant. The Respondent maintained that on 13 June 2017 the Complainant was notified that a further six allegations were being investigated. These allegations included a misrepresentation of harvest data; disobedience; failure to carry out his duties as a farm manager; failing to attend work; using company equipment for personal use without permission; and terminating commercial relationships without authorisation.

This meeting was noted, and the Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant’s solicitor had raised concerns that he was intimidated by the manager holding the meeting. Another interview was scheduled for 21 June 2017 and where the Complainant advised on 21 June 2017 that he would not attend that interview. The investigator therefore concluded matters and referred the issues to a disciplinary decision maker to decide on the alleged breaches. In all, some twenty-eight allegations were now being considered.

Another senior manager was appointed to conduct the disciplinary interviews. The Respondent submitted that a disciplinary hearing which was scheduled for 30 June 2017 but was deferred. Subsequent disciplinary hearings took place on four separate dates namely 21 July 2017, 16 August 2017, 18 August 2017, and 24 August 2017. At these disciplinary hearings the Complainant was legally represented, and the Respondent maintained all matters were dealt with during the course of those disciplinary meetings. Detailed notes of the meetings were submitted. The Respondent advised that it issued the outcome of the process on 29 August 2017 where eighteen out of twenty-eight allegations were upheld. The Complainant was advised that a decision was made to dismiss him without notice with effect from 29 August 2017 in light of the serious breaches that had been found.

The Complainant appealed the disciplinary outcome on 31 August 2017 through his solicitors. The Respondent submitted some five booklets of information relating to the documentary evidence relied upon during the disciplinary procedure. These booklets contained copies of correspondence between the Respondent and the Complainant’s solicitors including correspondence dating back to 2016, and also the documents submitted by the Complainant during the course of the disciplinary hearings. That information was also forwarded to the Complainant’s solicitors on 6 September 2017 in advance of the disciplinary appeal hearing. Another senior manager from the company was appointed as a decision maker for the disciplinary appeal hearing.

Disciplinary appeal hearings took place on 18 September 2017, 20 September 2017, 22 September 2017, 26 September 2017, and 3 October 2017. At the appeal hearings the Complainant was represented by solicitor and counsel at each of the meetings. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant called no evidence during the disciplinary hearings or the disciplinary appeal hearings and refused to give any evidence himself. It also maintained that at no stage did the Complainant’s representatives dispute the content of any of the hearing notes of the various meetings that were held. The Respondent maintained that some seven witnesses had provided evidence during the disciplinary and appeal hearings.

The Respondent therefore submitted that a full investigation of the allegations had been carried out by the Respondent and that all relevant employees had been interviewed but that the Complainant did not put forward any evidence or witnesses to support his position. The Respondent also maintained that throughout the actual interviews the Complainant was aggressive, was shouting and insulting towards investigating manager. It maintained that the Complainant continuously refused to answer questions and that his evidence was inconsistent and obstructive. It submitted meeting notes of the investigation meetings to support its position in this regard. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant had indicated he did not receive correspondence in the course of the investigation when he clearly had received same, that his letterbox was suddenly removed from outside his house,

The Respondent submitted that of the eighteen of the twenty-eight allegations the Complainant had been found guilty of, sixteen of these were upheld and one partially upheld at the appeal stage. Four of the allegations were deemed to be less serious with the remainder being regarded as serious enough to amount to serious/gross misconduct. Based on the allegations upheld at the appeal and the fact that the Complainant was in a senior and trusted position the Respondent found that his actions amounted to serious/gross misconduct, had destroyed the necessary trust and confidence an employer should expect. It therefore submitted that under those circumstances and the detailed procedures it engaged in that the decision to dismiss the Complainant was entirely reasonable in all circumstances.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00016518-001Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The Complainant maintained that he was unfairly dismissed as a result of a flawed and biased investigation. The Complainant submitted the Respondent failed to carry out a full and fair investigation and failed to investigate all aspects of the allegations against him. The Complainant submitted that the investigation included historical allegations and it also became apparent in the course of the disciplinary hearing that another investigation was said to have taken place without notice to the Complainant and in respect of which details were never furnished to him or his solicitor. The Complainant further submitted that the said investigation also transgressed in to private family law matters notwithstanding the "in camera rule" and their irrelevance to the issues relating to his employment.

The Complainant maintained that he denied the allegations in their entirety at the disciplinary hearing and appeal hearings, and he continues to deny them. The Complainant submitted that in view of the multiplicity of the allegations and the historical nature of the allegations the investigation and subsequent disciplinary process was a clear attempt to stack grievance upon grievance against him with the view to ensuring his dismissal.

At the hearing the Complainant also submitted that the basis of the dismissal was due to his refusal to sign fraudulent claims made by the Respondent for EU payments. The Complainant maintained these fraudulent claims, which related to agricultural grants from the Department of Agriculture were uncovered by the Complainant when he had returned from sick leave and where he had been asked to falsify forms to enable the Respondent to be paid the grants. Then Complainant maintained the Respondent had claimed over €2million between 2013 to 2017. The Complainant submitted that following his refusal to sign the allegedly fraudulent claim forms he was subject to a disciplinary meeting in May 2016, that he was subject to bullying and harassment from his manager during May and June 2016, where he took sick leave until February 2017. He maintained that upon his return to work he was suspended on pay, was not paid from May 2017, and was dismissed in August 2017. (It is noted this issue was not provide in evidence during the internal investigation or appeal process).

The Complainant submitted that the disciplinary investigation was flawed and where he submitted correspondence between the head of HR and his manager which he maintained clearly indicated that the Respondent had a meeting on 25th May 2016 to discuss the situation and where the head of HR had advised the manager to take note of everything the Complainant said in writing, to get as much detail as possible, the more you obtain now on record, he would be unable to go back on the future. In this email correspondence the manager had asked the head of a HR if this was for the next stage of the process. The Complainant advised he attended a meeting with his manager on 26 May 2016 and was not aware that this meeting would form part of a disciplinary process. The Complainant also submitted correspondence provided to him which he maintained indicated that this manager and the Group Managing Director had been discussing the matter by email on 2 June 2016, and where this occurred three days after he had issued a complaint of bullying against the manager of the 30 May 2016.

On that basis the Complainant maintained that the procedures from the outset were prejudiced against him and where the Respondent had a predetermined calculated move to have the him dismissed. The Complainant submitted that these emails occurred before any disciplinary hearing had taken place. The Complainant maintained that the Managing Director was instrumental in a concerted effort to oust him from the company. The Complainant further submitted copies of emails between the Head of HR and the manager which were copied to the Respondent’s solicitor. The Complainant maintained that these emails were written when he was on sick leave and before any disciplinary action had been taken against him. He maintained he had not been informed of any investigation or disciplinary procedures at this stage, and accordingly this was further evidence of a predetermined decision made by the Respondent to dismiss him.

During his period of sick leave and prior to any disciplinary procedures before February 2017, the Complainant submitted that he was subject to constant bombardment and harassment by the Head of HR where he received some 16 letters in a very short period while he was suffering from work-related stress that had been confirmed by his own GP and the Respondent’s occupational health professional. He maintained this exasperated his conditions and required him to attend counselling.

The Complainant advised that he submitted a data request to the Respondent on 30 August 2016 using the Respondent’s access request form, but that he did not receive the data requested. The Complainant maintained that the Respondent had notes that were relied upon in the disciplinary process but were not shared with him. These notes related to a telephone conversations he had with his Manager on 30 May 2016 when he lodged a complaint of bullying and harassment, and notes of a meeting with the Acting Farm Manager.

The Complainant submitted that on 2 February 2017 by way of letter he was advised that the Respondent would no longer be facilitating the payment of his health insurance premium to the group scheme. He submitted that his health insurance was cancelled from the 14 February 2017 despite the fact he had returned to work on the 6 February 2017. He maintained that he had always fully paid his health insurance premium to the company. The Complainant contended that this approach was different to when he was on sick leave during 2012/2030 and again in 2014 where the company paid his health insurance and full wages without any questions. He therefore submitted that this further demonstrated the Respondent had a predetermined outcome of the investigation to dismiss him before it began, and this is why the Respondent cancelled facilitating his payment for his health insurance.

The Complainant submitted that his solicitor had requested an independent investigator be appointed for the disciplinary hearings and the subsequent appeal, however both these requests were refused and that the persons hearing both the disciplinary investigation and subsequent appeal were not independent.

The Complainant attended the investigation meeting that was planned for 12 April 2017. He advised that he did not receive notification of the investigation meeting subsequently planned for 10 May 2017. He submitted that as he was estranged from his wife and was no longer living at his former address but at a similar address close by. Consequently, he believed the letter was posted to his wife’s house rather than his and was never provided to him. The post box referred to by the Respondent that was removed was a post box outside his wife’s house.

The Complainant submitted that he was subsequently notified by the Respondent on 15 May 2017 that due to his non-attendance at the meeting planned for 10 May 2017 that his pay had been discontinued. The Complainant’s solicitor wrote to the Respondent on 22 May 2017 advising that neither the Complainant of the solicitor had been notified of the meeting planned for 10 May 2017 and the solicitor challenged the decision to cease his pay.

The investigation meeting was subsequently rescheduled for 15 June 2017, and the Complainant attended this meeting. Following the meeting, through his solicitor, the Complainant raised concerns to the Respondent regarding the additional allegations and that he had not been notified of same prior to the meeting, and where he also expressed concerns regarding the conduct of the manager conducting the meeting. The Complainant failed to attend a further investigation meeting that was planned for 22 June 2017.

The Complainant did not accept his attitude at the Investigation meetings were disruptive and he maintained inter alia that he had been bullied by his manager in May 2016 before the investigation; that the investigation manager was prejudiced towards him and had shouted at him.

The Complainant acknowledged that following the investigation process he attended a series of disciplinary meetings and that he was found in breach of some 18 allegations. He was legally represented at these meetings. He appealed the outcome and attended a series of Appeal hearings where he was represented by his solicitor and Counsel. At the WRC hearing the Complainant raised questions in relation to the substantive matters he was suspended for, and maintained they were not properly investigated, and that the appeal hearing did not address his concerns.

On that basis the Complainant maintained from the outset the process was biased and unfair. In particular he contended that the managers conducting the investigation, the disciplinary hearing, and the appeal hearing had a predetermined the outcome. As such the Complainant submitted he was unfairly dismissed due to the flawed procedures afforded to him.

CA-00016518-002Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant submitted that he was due a sum of €40,487.17 which was made up of his performance Bonus and sick pay, both of which he did not receive.

The Complainant maintained that during 2012/13 he had taken sick leave for a back injury, and he again took sick leave in 2014 with cancer. During these periods of sick leave he received his full sick pay, and health insurance contributions.

CA-00016518-003Complaint under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Complainant submitted that he commenced his employment on 5 February 2007 and his employment was terminated without notice on 16 October 2017. The Complainant was seeking pay in lieu of the appropriate notice under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act.

Summary of Respondent’s Case to the other Complaints:

CA-00016518-002Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Respondent submitted that as the Complainant had failed to cooperate with the investigation when he was suspended on pay and that, in accordance with this policy and procedures, it ceased payment to the Complainant when he was suspended due to his lack of cooperation investigation process.

CA-00016518-003Complaint under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Respondent submitted that that Complainant was dismissed due to breaches of serious misconduct and where its disciplinary procedures, in accordance with the Complainant’s contract of employment, allowed for a dismissal without notice under such circumstances. It therefore maintained he was not in breach of the minimum notice in terms of employment act 1973.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00016518-001Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

In accordance with Section 6(1) the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 “the dismissal of an employee should be deemed, for the purpose of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless having regard to all circumstances, the were substantial grounds for justifying the dismissal”.

Section 6(4) of the Act states the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if inter alia it results wholly or mainly from the conduct of the employee.

In addition Section 6(7) of the Act requires that in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if the Adjudication Officer considers it appropriate to do so- (a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and (b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure which the employer will observe before and for the purpose ofdismissing the employee …or with the provisions of any code of practice.

As to whether there were substantial grounds for the Complainant’s dismissal on the ground of gross misconduct, the applicable legal test is the “band of reasonable responses” test, as comprehensively set out by Mr Justice Noonan in the context of Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 in the High Court case of The Governor and the Company of Bank of Ireland -v- James Reilly (2015) IEHC 241, wherein he stated: “It is thus clear that the onus is on the employer to establish that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal and that it resulted wholly or mainly from one of the matters specified in s. 6(4), which includes the conduct of the employee or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Section 6(7) makes clear that the court may have regard to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct in relation to the dismissal. That is however not to say that the court or other relevant body may substitute its own judgment as to whether the dismissal was reasonable for that of the employer. The question rather is whether the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to the conduct concerned - see Royal Bank of Scotland -v- Lindsay UKEAT/0506/09/DM.”

In relation to procedural fairness, I am guided not only by the Respondent’ disciplinary policy, but also by the requirement in S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) which provides that the procedures for dealing with disciplinary issues (reflecting the varying circumstances of enterprises/organisations), must comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures. The contractual and constitutional rights to fair procedures are also well established (In Re: Haughey [1971] IR 217). Such rights provide for a right of appeal, and to be heard as part of that appeal process.

Having considered the evidence presented I am satisfied the procedures offered to the Complainant were detailed, proportionate, and extensive. The procedures included a separate investigation process where the Complainant chose not to be represented and where he did not attend a final investigation meeting. The process progressed to a disciplinary meeting that was conducted over four dates and where the Complainant was legally represented. The conclusions of this process found the Complainant had breached some eighteen of the twenty-eight allegations against him. It is noted he did not provide evidence himself, nor did he call any witnesses to the disciplinary meetings. The Investigation was conducted by a senior manager not associated with any of the alleged wrongdoing.

The Complainant was then afforded an appeal process. He was legally represented at this process and the appeal was conducted over a period of five separate meetings. Notes of these meetings demonstrate that a detailed process was conducted by the Respondent and where another senior manager not associated with the allegations heard the appeal. The outcome of the appeal upheld fourteen of the allegations as being breaches of serious misconduct.

At the Adjudication hearing within the Complainant sought to re-open some of the substantive evidence related to the disciplinary and appeal hearings, and sought to have some of the substantive matters reconsidered. I am satisfied that the Complainant was given ample opportunity and was facilitated with being legally represented at the investigation, the disciplinary hearing, and the appeal hearing. Within the disciplinary and appeal procedures the Complainant did not give direct evidence himself or call any witnesses to challenge the substantive matters under investigation at that time. It is not the role of the Adjudicator to conduct a disciplinary investigation or an appeal of substantive matters. Rather under the Unfair Dismissal Act it is the role of the Adjudicator to consider whether the acts or omissions of the employer could be deemed to have reasonably contributed to an unfair dismissal, and/or whether the dismissal was due to the conduct of the employee.

In the case within I am satisfied the Complainant was provided with adequate opportunity and procedures to present his response to the allegations. I am also satisfied based on the substantial amount of information and records provided by the Respondent that a very detailed investigation, disciplinary process, and appeal process was afforded to the Complainant. It is evident the Complainant did not provide direct evidence at the disciplinary and appeal stage. It is also clear from the evidence presented by the Respondent that serious matters were uncovered and that following the detailed disciplinary procedures it concluded, based on the evidence provided to it during these investigations and disciplinary procedures, that the Complainant was in breach of serious misconduct. Accordingly in accordance with its own procedures and the Complainant’s contract of employment I find that the Respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss the Complainant for breaches of serious misconduct. I am satisfied the Complainant was afforded fair procedures prior to his dismissal.

For the aforementioned reasons I do not uphold this complaint.

CA-00016518-002Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Section 5 (1)(b) of the Payment of Wags Act 1991 states that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless— the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

Two matters refer to the Complainant regarding his allegation of non-payment of wages. The first element refers to his non-payment when he was on sick leave from May 2016 to February 2017. The second element refers to his non-payment of pay when suspended during the disciplinary investigation and subsequent procedures. Notwithstanding I am satisfied that the Complainant contract was terminated on 29th August 2017 when he was dismissed for misconduct.

With regard to the payment of sick leave I note the Complainant was paid for his sick leave when he was sick in 2012/13 with a back injury, and again during 2014 due to cancer. With regard to the complaint within it is noted that the Complainant failed to co-operate with the Respondents sick leave procedures and where he was asked on numerous occasions to attend for a medical, and where he did not comply with this request until 31st August 2016. As the company policy is to apply a discretionary sick pay scheme, it decided not to pay the Complainant during his period of absence as he had not co-operated with the Respondent. The Respondent advised the Complainant of this matter on 5th August 2016. I therefore do not find that the company was in breach of its sick pay scheme and I therefore do not uphold the complaint for the period of the Complainant’s sick leave.

With regard to the Complainant’s pay while suspended, it is evident that the Complainant was advised his pay while suspended was dependent on his co-operation with the Investigation. Based on the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Complainant’s non-attendance at the investigation in May 2017 was due to the fact he did not receive the letters sent to him at that time. I am satisfied that the Complainant’s evidence that the letter may have been sent to the wrong house is credible. It is noted that he did engage with the Investigation once this matter was addressed and attended the investigation meetings until the meeting scheduled on 22 June 2017 when he declined to attend that meeting. The Complainant again co-operated with the disciplinary hearings which commenced on 30th June 2017 until the decision to dismiss the Complainant occurred on 29th August 2017. The Complainant again co-operated with the disciplinary process from 30th June 2017.

I therefore find that the Complainant was entitled to be paid while suspended up to 22 June 2017, and from 30th June 2017 to 29th August 2017 when he was co-operating with the investigation and disciplinary procedures.

CA-00016518-003Complaint under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

Section 4 (d) of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that an employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, provide six weeks’ notice.

As I have fond the Complainant was not subject to an unfair dismissal and where the was summarily dismissed following a fairly conducted extensive investigation and disciplinary process I do not uphold that the Respondent is in breach of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

Decision:

CA-00016518-001Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

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 this complaint of unfair dismissal not to be well-founded and accordingly dismiss same.

CA-00016518-002Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to a contravention under Section 5 of that Act.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that upon finding a complaint well-founded, an Adjudication Officer may direct an employer to pay an employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding: “(a) the net amount of the wages (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom).” 

As I have found the complaint is well founded as respects the deductions from the Complainant’s wages for the period that he was suspended from February 2017 to the date of his termination on 29 August 2017, with the exception of the 22 June to 30 June 2017 when the Complainant failed to attend an investigation meeting on 22 June 2017, I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation for the a weeks wages for each week he was not paid during the period of his suspension, between 9th February up to 29th August 2017.

CA-00016518-003Complaint under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to a contravention of Section 4 of that Act.

As I have found the Respondent is not in Contravention of the Act this complaint is not upheld.

Dated:   16th September 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Key Words: