Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Security Officer

Security Company

Representatives

Represented

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-00031601-001

16/10/2019

The Complainant was employed as a Security Officer from 19th September 2018. The date of termination is in dispute. He was paid €12.50 per hour. He has claimed that he was constructively dismissed and has sought compensation. The Respondent rejects this complaint and has stated that the Complainant is still in their employment.

The Complainant stated that he was employed on a full-time contract working 36 hours + per week. He worked these full-time hours until 4th April 2019. He then wasn’t getting his full hours. He was offered another site, but it was too far to travel. The Respondent told him that he couldn’t work in Site A in Dublin West. The Respondent had only one other Site B in Dublin West. He was moved to Site B initially on 40 hours + per week. But he only got 20 hours. He was then given in addition 10 hours in Site A. He was experiencing dental problems and he travelled home to Poland for treatment on a few occasions. He always had permission to leave to travel home and he always gave a return to work date. He then got his hours back in Site A but then the hours reduced until he got none. He raised a grievance about his hours of work and met two members of management. At that meeting he told them that he wanted a roster. He was informed by management that he could no longer work in Site A, but they wouldn’t tell him why. He stated that he did not make a mistake at Site A. A member of the public was not let into the site. The member of the public asked to use the toilet and he sought permission from management, but it was not given. He accepted that and the member of the public was not let in. He was never told about any other issue at Site A. He then got full time hours in Site B for two months. He made a mistake and gave an access card to a person who should not have got it, so he was removed from that site because of the mistake. The work he was given in Site B was not reception work but car park work. He was then given three options 1) Leave the employment, 2) get hours in other locations but can’t be definitive, on the south side of the city. The management were unable to quantify the exact hours. 3) if he goes legal, he won’t get a job in security. He was asked to think about it. He accepts that he didn’t respond to the Respondent. He was told by management to stop sending all these emails. He then made a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.  He was unsure what to put on the complaint form. His main issue is not getting hours of work. His hours of work have stopped, and he only receives zero hours roster each week. He advised that he never received the three letters that the Respondent allegedly sent in October. He has claimed constructive dismissal as he has no hours of work. He advised that he worked in computer assembly for a few weeks. He then joined another security company from the end of November to January 2020. There were some problems with that security company so it was mutually agreed that he would leave. He has not worked since. He does not want to work for the Respondent again. He is seeking compensation.

The Respondent stated that they met with the Complainant on 26th August 2019 to discuss his position. He had a witness with him. There was an incident in Site A. This was a high-profile organisation. A member of the public sought to access the site to use the toilet. This was unacceptable to the Client company and they did not want the Complainant on site during the day time. They were OK with him doing the night shift as the premises in completely locked up and secure. He worked some night shifts, but performance issues arose. He was not completing the reports and there was an issue with his personal hygiene. He was then asked to move from that site at the request of the Client Company. The Respondent has restricted availability in Dublin West. He was given work in Site B but the Client Company were unhappy with him so they had to move him. He then sent a considerable amount of emails to management. It was at this time that he took time off to have his dental treatment. The Respondent asked Site B Client Company to give him another chance. As he had not given them a return to work date, this impacted negatively on his chance of getting hours. When they met up in August the Complainant told them he wanted Site A. The Respondent pointed out that this was not possible. The Respondent then offered him Site B working Monday to Friday 8.00am to 4.00pm and he accepted it, this was 29th August 2019. He completed the training for Site B. On 7th or 8th October 2019 a member of the public was given a general access card, this was an all-area access card including their Comms room. The visitor to this site was attending a meeting and should not have been given the general access card. This had ben dealt with in the initial training. The Client Company asked that the Complainant be removed. The Respondent met him on 11th October. He accepted that he gave the card in error. He was informed that the Client Company did not want him on the site. He was told that the only other options available to him was the city centre or the Southside. The Complainant then stated that he would have to leave. He was asked to think about it and get back to them. To date he has not responded. Another security company sought a reference., which was given. The Respondent wrote to him on three occasions, 16th, 22nd and 25th October 2019, enquiring about his status. After the WRC advised them about this complaint, they informed the Mediator that there was no resignation or any response to their letters. He is still on their books. The TMS system issues zero hours roster until a leave date is confirmed. They stated that based on his history of emails they believed that he wanted to go to the WRC. The Complainant is still on their books. He has never resigned his position and there are sites available in the city centre and the Southside of Dublin. There is no merit in this claim and it is rejected.

Alleged constructive dismissal.