Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Customer Care Team Leader

Rural Broadband provider

Representatives

Self -represented

Did not attend

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00031418-001

07/10/2019

The worker contends that he was unfairly dismissed. He has less than 12 months service.

He commenced employment on   22/5/2019. He was unfairly dismissed on the 3/10/2019.

He worked 37.5 hours per week. His annual salary€28,000.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 7 October 2019.

The worker was a customer care team leader engaged in sourcing new customers for the employer who sold, installed and maintained rural broadband services.

He often had to do the job of three staff members as staff were moved around frequently.

He made a complaint of bullying against the deputy CEO on the 12 September. The Deputy CEO stated a meeting would happen on the 13 September. It did not.

He was called into a meeting with the CEO and deputy CEO on 26 September. He was not advised in advance of the purpose of the meting nor given the option to have someone accompany him. The CEO advised that he had not met sales target, customers were cancelling orders because they could not get through to customer care, that installations were taking too long , and that this was a new experience for the company. He held the worker responsible for this downturn in business. The worker stated it sounds as if you want me gone, to which the CEO replied, “well, yes basically” The worker explained that they were understaffed, that customers sometimes cancel because installation will be delayed. The respondent CEO told him that he was saying the wrong things and that he had to fight for his job.

The employer asked him for his key card on the 26 September. His laptop was removed and not returned unlike other staff who had their laptops returned. He was given an extra week’s pay on the 26 September.

The deputy CEO sent notice of dismissal on the 3 October. The worker sent a letter of appeal to the CEO who replied stating that” his decision to dismiss was final”.

The worker secured alternative employment on the 1 November on the minimum wage.

The respondent though notified did not attend the hearing , nor did he indicate any difficulty with the arrangements in advance of the hearing.

The operative document governing disciplinary procedures in the absence of a disciplinary procedure in the workplace is S.1 146/2000 ,General Principles, which provide as follows:

” The essential elements of any procedure for dealing with grievance and disciplinary issues are that they be rational and fair, that the basis for disciplinary action is clear, that the range of penalties that can be imposed is well-defined and that an internal appeal mechanism is available.”

The worker’s description of how his dismissal occurred is uncontested . Contrary to the obligations set out in S.1. 146 of 2000, the worker was not advised in writing of the charges or possible sanctions facing him. There was no advance notice, a mere cursory examination of the alleged complaints, and no opportunity to be accompanied at the meeting which resulted in his dismissal. In accordance with his contract, he did exercise the right of appeal, but was not offered an opportunity to make the case to the respondent as to why the decision to dismiss should be reversed. The events of 26 September, ( the requested return of his key card, his laptop and an extra week’s salary) indicate that it was a predetermined decision.

The worker was deprived of any process conforming to the requirements of natural justice.

I recommend that the employer pay the worker the sum of €1027 which is equal to 6 weeks’ loss as the worker is now on the minimum wage for their failure to employ fair procedures.

I recommend that the employer pay the worker the sum of €1027 for their failure to employ fair procedures in terminating his employment.

Lack of fair procedures.