ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
(Correction Order)
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00022497
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Receptionist | A Guesthouse |
Representatives | Alyson Fynes B.L. instructed by Sheehan & Partners, Solicitors. |
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00029450-001 | 03/07/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This Correction Order has been issued to accurately reflect the name of the respondent.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. No explanation was received for his failure to do so. The respondent had previously engaged with the WRC. In December he successfully sought a postponement of a scheduled hearing of the case due to a family bereavement. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant had been employed by the respondent since 13th April 2017 as a receptionist. She worked three days per week, Saturday, Sunday and Monday from 8am to 3pm and was paid €12 per hour.
The Complainant had never been the subject of any disciplinary action or sanction. She had always been a reliable and trustworthy employee. She does not recall signing a contract or being provided with any workplace policies.
On June 3rd, 2019 she was late for work and arrived at 9am. She was usually on time and had never a warning in relation to time keeping.
A short time later the Complainant left the reception area to speak with a guest in her room although she had never left reception before. She was absent for about forty-five minutes but throughout this time the front door to the Guest House was locked and she carried a portable bell with her to enable her to attend to any callers.
The Complainant then returned to reception and completed her shift, following which she went home as normal.
The Respondent texted the Complainant on 5th June 2019 the following message;
"Hi [name], you didn't arrive until after 9am on Monday and left reception unattended for most of your shift thereafter. I have checked on camera system. It's not acceptable to do this obviously and so I'm letting you go with immediate effect. Your final paycheck can be collected at reception or I can post it to you if you prefer."
The Respondent did post the Complainant’s final pay check to her.
The Complainant was unfairly dismissed without notice or investigation and without having been afforded a right to fair procedure. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The onus under the Unfair Dismissals Act falls on the employer to justify the dismissal. In this case the respondent did not attend. In order for a dismissal to be fair there must be sufficient grounds to justify disciplinary proceedings or other action against the employee related to performance or conduct. The complainant accepted that her absence from reception was an error on her part, although she could have responded to anyone trying to gain admission to the guesthouse quite quickly. Secondly, in our employment rights system there are well established procedural obligations placed on an employer who is carrying out disciplinary action in order to protect the rights of the employee or other parties affected and ensure that justice is done. These are not particularly onerous and are generally well known. They are referred to by such terms as fair procedure and natural, or constitutional justice. They include such requirements as proper notice to the employee as to the ‘charges’ they are facing, the basis for them, and the likely outcomes in the event of an adverse finding. A right to a companion is also contained in the Code of Practice SI 146/2000. In establishing the basis for the disciplinary action, an employer is required to take reasonable steps to establish the facts of the matter. In this case the respondent alleged in the text message that the complainant was absent for ‘most’ of her shift. The complainant says it was forty five minutes or so. Establishing the accuracy of the alleged period of absence would be a minimum requirement before proceeding. Even factoring in her late arrival that morning her normal shift lasted seven hours (or, on this occasion six due to her lateness). Forty five minutes is nowhere near ‘most’ of it. Finally, there is the matter of sanction which must fall within what is described as a range of reasonable responses by the employer. In this case there was no record of previous disciplinary breaches, and while the complainant accepted at the hearing that she should not have been absent from her station, it would be hard to see dismissal for having done so, and as a first time offence as being within a ‘range of reasonable responses’. In any event it is the entire absence of anything resembling a fair process that is decisive in this case and renders the dismissal unfair and a breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. In relation to her losses she did not gain employment until December 28th, 2019 and at a lower hourly rate (approximately €2.00per hour) than she enjoyed with the respondent. |
Decision:
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 complaint CA-00029450-001 to be well founded and I award the complainant €5,000.00. |
Dated: 21/04/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal. Fair procedure. |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Receptionist | A Guesthouse |
Representatives | Alyson Fynes B.L. instructed by Sheehan & Partners, Solicitors. |
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00029450-001 | 03/07/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. No explanation was received for his failure to do so. The respondent had previously engaged with the WRC. In December he successfully sought a postponement of a scheduled hearing of the case due to a family bereavement. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant had been employed by the respondent since 13th April 2017 as a receptionist. She worked three days per week, Saturday, Sunday and Monday from 8am to 3pm and was paid €12 per hour.
The Complainant had never been the subject of any disciplinary action or sanction. She had always been a reliable and trustworthy employee. She does not recall signing a contract or being provided with any workplace policies.
On June 3rd, 2019 she was late for work and arrived at 9am. She was usually on time and had never a warning in relation to time keeping.
A short time later the Complainant left the reception area to speak with a guest in her room although she had never left reception before. She was absent for about forty-five minutes but throughout this time the front door to the Guest House was locked and she carried a portable bell with her to enable her to attend to any callers.
The Complainant then returned to reception and completed her shift, following which she went home as normal.
The Respondent texted the Complainant on 5th June 2019 the following message;
"Hi [name], you didn't arrive until after 9am on Monday and left reception unattended for most of your shift thereafter. I have checked on camera system. It's not acceptable to do this obviously and so I'm letting you go with immediate effect. Your final paycheck can be collected at reception or I can post it to you if you prefer."
The Respondent did post the Complainant’s final pay check to her.
The Complainant was unfairly dismissed without notice or investigation and without having been afforded a right to fair procedure. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The onus under the Unfair Dismissals Act falls on the employer to justify the dismissal. In this case the respondent did not attend. In order for a dismissal to be fair there must be sufficient grounds to justify disciplinary proceedings or other action against the employee related to performance or conduct. The complainant accepted that her absence from reception was an error on her part, although she could have responded to anyone trying to gain admission to the guesthouse quite quickly. Secondly, in our employment rights system there are well established procedural obligations placed on an employer who is carrying out disciplinary action in order to protect the rights of the employee or other parties affected and ensure that justice is done. These are not particularly onerous and are generally well known. They are referred to by such terms as fair procedure and natural, or constitutional justice. They include such requirements as proper notice to the employee as to the ‘charges’ they are facing, the basis for them, and the likely outcomes in the event of an adverse finding. A right to a companion is also contained in the Code of Practice SI 146/2000. In establishing the basis for the disciplinary action, an employer is required to take reasonable steps to establish the facts of the matter. In this case the respondent alleged in the text message that the complainant was absent for ‘most’ of her shift. The complainant says it was forty five minutes or so. Establishing the accuracy of the alleged period of absence would be a minimum requirement before proceeding. Even factoring in her late arrival that morning her normal shift lasted seven hours (or, on this occasion six due to her lateness). Forty five minutes is nowhere near ‘most’ of it. Finally, there is the matter of sanction which must fall within what is described as a range of reasonable responses by the employer. In this case there was no record of previous disciplinary breaches, and while the complainant accepted at the hearing that she should not have been absent from her station, it would be hard to see dismissal for having done so, and as a first time offence as being within a ‘range of reasonable responses’. In any event it is the entire absence of anything resembling a fair process that is decisive in this case and renders the dismissal unfair and a breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. In relation to her losses she did not gain employment until December 28th, 2019 and at a lower hourly rate (approximately €2.00per hour) than she enjoyed with the respondent. |
Decision:
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 complaint CA-00029450-001 to be well founded and I award the complainant €5,000.00. |
Dated: 21/04/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal. Fair procedure. |