FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ALLPRO SECURITY SERVICES IRELAND LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No. ADJ-00021033.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation by the Employer. On the 30 September 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €2,500 in compensation for her unfair dismissal.”
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10 March 2020.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by an Employer against the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer Adj-00021033 CA-00027574-001 in a claim of unfair dismissal by the Claimant under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Claimant was employed as an Executive Administrator and Receptionist and was contracted to work at a client company. She commenced employment on 25th March 2019 and her employment was terminated on 5th April 2019.
The Claimant’s Employer stated that her employment was terminated due to,inter alia, her unsatisfactory conduct.
The Adjudication Officer found that there was a breach of fair procedures and natural justice in the dismissal procedures and recommended that the Employer should pay her a sum of €2,500 in compensation.
At the commencement of her employment, the Claimant raised concerns with the client company who responded by requesting that she divert her queries to her Employer.
The Employer stated that the client company had raised concerns regarding the Claimant’s performance. It stated that the Claimant was called to a formal meeting on 4th April 2020 with the HR Manager, and the Area Contact Manager, to discuss her concerns and to address performance issues it had with her. At the conclusion of the meeting the Claimant was advised that going forward there needed to be a vast improvement in her performance. Management said that all areas of improvement were clear and unequivocal with time given for improvement. The Employer said that on completion of the meeting and on leaving the workplace, the Claimant became agitated and informed management that she would not be attending work the following day and was resigning from her employment. She accused management of bullying and said she was going to contact her solicitor.
Management stated that the decision to terminate her employment was due to the consequences of her actions following the meeting on 4th April 2019, when she threatened not to return to work, sending the client company falsified company documents, being abusive to client company and for threatening legal action. It denied the Claimant’s assertion that it failed to comply with fair procedures.
The Claimant refuted the allegations made against her, she said that she was very upset over the meeting on 4th April 2019 and felt that it was conducted in an unprofessional manner. Following which she had an accident that evening which necessitated attendance at hospital on Saturday 6th April. She said that by email on Friday afternoon, 5th April 2019, she received the minutes of the 4th April meeting and, without explanation, this was accompanied with a letter of termination of employment. The Claimant said that this came as a shock to her as she had been informed that the meeting of 4th April was not a disciplinary meeting, she was not required to have a representative present and the letter of dismissal did not allow for an appeal of the decision to dismiss.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court understands that there were issues with the Claimant’s employment which needed to be addressed, accordingly the meeting was held on 4th April to address those issues. Following which due to the actions of the Claimant in contacting the client company, that company directed the Employer to discontinue with her services. As the Employer had no other position to place her in, it stated that it had no alternative but to terminate her employment.
Having considered the procedures adopted by the Employer in this case, the Court is not satisfied that they complied with the principles of natural justice or with S.I. 146. It appears to the Court that a precipitous decision was made to dismiss the Claimant for events which occurred post the performance review meeting which took place on 4th April 2019. The Claimant was not provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations which resulted in her dismissal and she was not afforded an opportunity to be represented at any decision-making process. The Court notes that at the conclusion of the meeting on 4th April, management had instructed her to improve her performance and were giving her time to do so, yet her employment was terminated the following day.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that the dismissal was procedurally unfair and accordingly upholds the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation and concurs with her recommendation that the Claimant should be paid compensation of €2,500. Therefore, the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation is affirmed and the Employer’s appeal is disallowed.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
18 March, 2020Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.