Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Personal Trainer

A Fitness Club

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00027079-001

14/03/2019

The complainant began work with the respondent on July 7^th 2018.

In the course of her employment she was also undergoing a process of training and qualification.

Part of the assessment process for her training involved submitting a video presentation.

While she was not fully satisfied with the quality of the video material she had prepared she was encouraged by a supervisor to submit it anyway, and told that she would get another opportunity to submit one and make any improvements that might be needed.

She failed the assessment.

In due course she noticed that a ‘staff meeting’ was scheduled in her on-line diary for the following week although she was the only staff member required to attend.

She arrived for the meeting with her manager who talked vaguely about the complainant not fitting into the company ‘culture’.

The complainant, sensing that something was awry, had to inquire whether her employment was being terminated. Her manager nodded her head to confirm that she was and added; ’unfortunately so’.

She was told the leave the premises that day and to return the following day to collect her personal property.

A deduction of €434 was made from her final salary as payment for the training course she was undergoing. This was in breach of her agreement with the respondent which provided that a deduction could only be made where an employee leaves of their own volition.

The respondent had no entitlement to make any deduction in these circumstances and the complainant says she was unfairly dismissed.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that it was properly notified of the hearing and no explanation was received for its failure to attend.

A person may only submit a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act in general once they have acquired twelve month’s service with their employer.

There are some very important exceptions to this requirement of twelve months’ service but none of them apply to the current complainant.

While this has important consequences, notably for the enforcement of any remedy which may be recommended under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, it does not relieve an employer of the obligation to act with fairness in any situation where a termination is being contemplated.

The requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness are not demanding. In their substance, they are little more in most cases than an extension of general principles of respect and courtesy into the practice of employee, or industrial relations.

A person facing termination should be made aware that it is being considered, given some chance to explain or respond to criticisms of alleged poor performance, if that is what is at issue, and also given a chance to improve, and if none of this has the desired effect to have their employment terminated with some respect for their dignity.

The vast majority of employers understand and apply these principles without any great difficulty or make a good effort to do so.

It is not hard to see, by reference to the complainant’s narrative above that her employer did not.

Indeed, the sequence of events is something of a masterclass in how not to treat an employee whose employment is being terminated. There was something approaching complete disrespect for her rights.

She was not told of the purpose of the meeting convened to terminate her employment, or given any indication in advance of what to expect at it, the explanation given to her by her manager was vague and meaningless, and she was dispatched from the premises as if she had done something seriously wrong.

To add insult to injury the employer then, and it appears without any contractual justification, reduced her wages by an amount in excess of a week’s wages.

To describe the dismissal as unfair scarcely does it justice; the conduct of the respondent was a gross breach of its responsibilities as an employer.

I uphold complaint CA-00027079-001 and find that the dismissal was procedurally unfair and without any substantive justification.

I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant €7,500.00 for the breach of her rights without any deduction of tax as provided for in Revenue Guidelines governing awards of Adjudication Officers.

I further recommend that the respondent undertake a serious review of its procedures to ensure that all relevant employees understand the obligations placed on them in a situation such as that described here, and that it fully complies with those obligations in the future.

Unfair Dismissal within first year.