Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Steel Fabrication Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00031806-001

24/10/2019

The issue in contention concerns the alleged Unfair Dismissal of a Steel Fabricator by a Steel Fabrication Company.

The Worker began with the Employer on the 22nd August 2019. It was a One Year Contract with a three-month probation period. After four weeks the Floor Manager approached him and told him that his “months Trial was up, and it has not worked out”. No verbal warnings or written warnings were given to him. He felt that during his time with the Employer he had performed well and had taken on board any suggestions made to him in relation to his work. He was an experienced craftsman who was proud of his work. The Floor Manager had been completely picky and unreasonable even insulting regarding his work skills. He had, on many occasions to bite his tongue where the Manager was concerned. The meeting on the 17th had been a final straw.

The Dismissal was completely Unfair, and no procedures had been followed.

The Employer had employed the Worker as a Fabricator in late August. He came with a good CV and what appeared to be a skilled background. The Principal Employer witness was Mr. Xa, the Floor Manager. He stated that he had soon noticed that the Worker was having difficulty completing welding/fabrication jobs to the required standards. His work was invariably not to the correct measurements. A lot of his work had to be scrapped. He had spoken to the Worker concerned and had tried to help him as best he could. He explained the requirements for exact measurements and demonstrated how to do the “jigs” correctly.

The Quality Manager Mr. Xb, explained that the Company, to stay in business, had very high-Quality certification standards and could not have basic mistakes made in any steelwork being sent to customers.

The conversations between the Floor manager and the Worker continued. A degree of Frustration became evident with both parties. On the morning of the 17 of September, at about 8.25 am the Worker was again approached by Mr Xa. He explained that the Company “was not happy with the Worker”. The Worker replied that the Company could “** Off so”. He then left the premises and never came back. Shortly afterwards he requested letters for the Social Welfare office to allow him claim Unemployment benefit. He was not dismissed but left of his own free will.

There was much Oral evidence in this case. There was no doubt that the Worker was an experienced Steel fabricator who felt that he had always produced quality work. He felt that the Employer and Mr. Xa, in particular, had always “picked on him” and made a big deal of minor issues. His patience was severely tested, and he did not deny that he had told the Employer where to go in no uncertain terms on the morning of the 17th December.

However, this was in perfectly legitimate response to Mr. Xa complaining once again. The statement from Mr. Xa that the Company was “Unhappy with him and needed to discuss his probation” was the final straw. It was a Dismissal without any procedures.

The Employer Quality Manager explained that the Company was a small Midlands company effectively operating as a niche subcontractor on major construction projects. To operate they had to have a range of Quality Certificates and could not afford to have any mistakes or roughness in their measurements. The Worker never seemed to fully grasp this fact. Put in plain English there was a difference between a farm gate and a steel fitting for a high-profile Multinational site.

The Floor Manager had gone out of his way to try and get the Worker to meet standards. Evidence was given by the Floor Manager and the Managing Director.

My Adjudication Officer view was that the Worker had never really taken to the work standards in the Employer. He had got very frustrated with Mr. Xa and had effectively snapped on the 17th and walked off. The Oral evidence and demeanour of the Parties at the Oral Hearing left me with no doubts on this point.

The evidence from Mr. Xa, an experienced Floor Manager, indicated that he had made numerous efforts to help the Worker with Jigs and measurements, but the basic mistakes kept occurring. I accepted this evidence. Regarding the conversation on the 17th he had never intended to dismiss the worker but had felt the need to emphasise to him the need to improve his work standards if he was to be kept on. He was taken aback by the response to “** off”.

Legal precedents always caution against “Heat of the Moment” resignations. Good practice is to allow an employee to come back to at least discuss the case when tempers have cooled. However, in this case I did not think this situation was ever a possibility. The Employer/Employee relationship was over. It was clear that the Worker found the Employer Quality requirements frustrating and did not give him any scope, in his view, to work as an experienced craftsman. His leaving the job was not entirely a spur of the moment decision. Likewise, the Employer was getting very frustrated and the probation was clearly in doubt, but the evidence pointed to no final decision having been made. The MD, Mr Xc gave evidence on this point. I found his evidence credible.

Accordingly, and in final summary I did not think an Unfair Dismissal, when all the evidence is considered, took place.

The case is Dismissed.