ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025268

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/03/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute

Background

The claimant was employed from 8 August 2019 to 17 September 2019. The claimant submitted that he commenced working for a motor retailer motor group on 4 December 2017 where he had an excellent position and was quickly promoted to sales executive.

During the claimant’s during this time was trained and supervised under the General Manager with whom trusting relationship developed between them. The claimant submitted that he did very well in his place of work and he was well liked by parties.

The Claimant was extremely happy in his employment and where he could have had the opportunity of growing within the position to develop his career.

It was submitted that the General Manager (CR) left to take up a similar role with a competitor

Prior to him leaving his employment respondent the General Manager (CR) had spoken to the claimant on several occasions about (Claimant) leaving his current role moving to where he (CR) was going to work as the general manager where he would have increased remuneration, better hours, and a better walk/life balance as well as a company car and the promise of a future with the company.

The Respondent assured him at all times that he would have job security with the new company and as this was a major concern of the claimant ‘s, as he had a young daughter whom he shared custody and he needed to provide for her and this was something he required in order to coax him to leave his current position.

The claimant submitted that the respondent (CR) assured him of this security and as a result he handed in his notice to finish with this current employer on the 7th August, so he could start his new position on the 8th August 2019

,000 plus bonus including a car which was taxed and insurance and a €20 fuel allowance/week. He positions was that of sales representative and he was also responsible for the company website as he was proficient in IT skills

The claimant met and spoke with the owner on the day he began when he was welcomed to the company. He did not have any further dealings conversations with your during his employment with respondent owner save for when his employment was terminated

The claimant stated that business was slow as it was a quiet spell for a sales representative to begin his new role; however, he sold two cars in that period. He made sure that he was kept busy during this time.

On 2 September 2019 the claimant came to work as usual with the respondent general manager informed him that his employment was to be terminated within 2 weeks’ notice and his employment will come to end on 16 September 2019.

It was submitted the reason for the dismissal was that he was “not a good fit”

no transport to take his daughter and or to enable him to get to work. He suffered from severe anxiety and received medication from his GP. The claimant stated that his confidence was totally shattered

Respondent Position

The respondent submits they utterly refute the suggestion that the claimant was unfairly dismissed

The claimant signed the contract of employment which expressed all terms and conditions of employment including the right of the respondent let him go within the probationary period if he was found to be unsuitable.

The claimant was dismissed as he was deemed suitable to the role and as his probation deemed failed.

The respondent is satisfied that a reasonable process was entered into by them provided to the claimant as per their probationary policy which was not taken on board,

This was not a decision taken lightly as the respondent general manager believed in having the claimant as he would be an asset to the company. More surprisingly, at least apparently to the general manager became evident very early on that he was not witnessing the same employee that he had worked with in his previous job.

He approached the claimant in this regard on numerous occasions providing feedback however this was not listened to and no improvement was demonstrated. Whilst giving the length of service, it is not required to provide notice respondent provided the claimant with 2 weeks’ notice as a gesture of goodwill and he was genuinely disappointed that it had not worked out. Nevertheless, he could not disagree with this respondent that the performance was well below was expected of someone with his experience and previous previously demonstrated capabilities.

Findings

There is no dispute between the parties in relation to the service of the claimant. There is no dispute that the claimant was enticed away from his former employment by the general manager with the promised secure employment.

I find claimant signed a contract of employment. The procedures were deemed to be in the handbook which the claimant alleges he did not receive.

I find the claimant was not made aware at any stage in the 5-week period that his work was not up to standard.

I find under The Industrial Relations Act 19 69, fair and proper procedures when dismissing an employee must be followed and adhered to considering S.I.146.2000

I find the claimant was head hunted and he was given promises of job security.

I find the period of time 5 weeks to an unreasonable in the circumstances. I find that the respondent provided no evidence except verbal that they spoke to the claimant about work performance. I find they submitted no records to support their position

I find that the claimant was on probation that he was entitled to fair procedures as is evident in the WRC in Beechside Company Limited T/A Hotel Kenmare v A Worker in which the employer did not afford the employee fair procedures during the probation period and where the employee concerned had been head hunted for the role and was summarily dismissed.

He was denied fair procedures with no representation or right of appeal. I find that claimant was Unfairly dismissed

Decision:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]

I recommend that the claimant is paid €4500 in compensation

Dated: 18th May, 2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Key Words: