ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023452
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Security Guard | A Security Guard |
Representatives | N/A | N/A |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00029991-001 | 31/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00029991-002 | 31/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00029991-003 | 31/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00029991-004 | 31/07/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaints/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints/dispute.
Background:
The complainant alleged that he was constructively dismissed from his employment on 14th February 2019. He also claimed that he was not paid his minimum notice and did not receive a contract of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that he was dismissed via text message on 18th January 2019 as he had not turned up to work at a particular site he was assigned to that day and had been late by approximately 45 minutes on a number of other occasions. He claimed that he was subsequently re-engaged by the respondent during his notice period but was sent to work on a number of other sites which were a considerable distance from his home. He also highlighted that there other more suitable locations where employees with shorter service were working but claimed that he was not considered for these. He stated that as a result of this unfair treatment, he had no alternative but to terminate his employment with the respondent on 14th February 2019. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent produced a copy of the contract of employment provided to the complainant and alleged that this was signed by him. It was also pointed out that one of the companies for whom the respondent provided security services ordered that the complainant not be allowed return to their site because of his failure to appear for work on 18th January 2019 and his previous persistent lateness. As a result, his supervisor made the decision to dismiss him. Notwithstanding this, the respondent decide to reinstate him and transferred him to other sites. The complainant subsequently terminated his employment of his own accord via email on 14th February 2019 but did not make the respondent aware of his reasons for doing so. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Preliminary Point: The complainant stated on his complaint form that he had started his employment with the respondent on 28th February 2018. The respondent disputed this and alleged that the start date was 5th March 2018. Given that this was the date shown on the contract of employment signed by the complainant, I am satisfied that this was the date on which he commenced with the respondent. Findings: I note in the first instance that the complainant was given a contract of employment which he also signed, acknowledging receipt of same. While he claimed that he did not receive a paper copy, I note that he never requested same. I also note that the complainant terminated his employment via email on 14th February 2019 but failed to make the company aware of any difficulties he had surrounding the locations he was assigned to and did not invoke the grievance procedure outlined in his contract of employment. Accordingly, I am satisfied that he was not constructively dismissed from his employment. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-29991-01: Given that the complainant resigned from his employment and failed to invoke the grievance procedure outlined in his contract of employment, I cannot make a recommendation that is favourable to him. CA-29991-02: Given that the complainant acknowledged receiving his terms and conditions of employment and that he signed for receipt of same, I do not consider that this complaint is well founded. CA-29991-03: This is a duplicate complaint to CA-29991-02. CA-29991-04: Given that the complainant resigned from his employment, his complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 18th March 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words: