ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025764
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A part-time employee | An Employer |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00032713-001 | 04/12/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00032713-002 | 04/12/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The respondent company operates in the car rental sector. The complainant began his employment in July 2016 in the car return section and from June 2018 was employed in a sales role. From September 2016, the complainant was employed in a part-time capacity but increased his hours during holiday periods. He was earning €10 per hour plus 5% commission. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that when he arrived to work on 26 November 2019, he was informed by his manager that due to a lack for work for part-time employees he would have to be let go for a while. The complainant submitted that when he enquired as to how long this might be for, he was informed that the respondent was unsure, but that they were trying to reduce the number of part-time hours worked. The complainant dismissed the suggestion that a constructive dismissal situation occurred but submitted that the actions of the respondent amounted to an unfair dismissal. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that it did not accept that the complainant’s employment was terminated, either on 26 November or at all. The respondent submitted that there was a slow-down in the sector and it needed to lay off a number of individuals for a short time. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00032713-001 In considering this element of the complaint, I note that the complainant stated that he did not resign and was adamant that this case was not one of ‘constructive dismissal’. The respondent contended that it did not dismiss the complainant and that they first became aware of the sundering of the employment relationship when they received the complaint documentation some eight days after the complainant was informed by his manager that they would have to let him go ‘for a while’.
The Unfair Dismissals Act provides the following definition in Section 1: “dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means— (a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee, (b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer, or (c) the expiration of a contract of employment for a fixed term without its being renewed under the same contract or, in the case of a contract for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), the cesser of the purpose;
Having considered the evidence given by both parties in the hearing of this matter and given that on the basis of the evidence from both parties, that there was no resignation and that the complainant was not let go, I am not satisfied that the existence of a dismissal, as defined in the Act, has been established. Accordingly, I find that no dismissal, as defined in the Act, has taken place.
CA-00032713-002 The complainant did not pursue the case relating to the Redundancy Payments Act at the hearing. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has not established the existence of a redundancy. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00032713-001 As no dismissal has been established in accordance with the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1997 my decision is that this element of the complaint fails. CA-00032713-002 As the complainant did not pursue matters under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 my decision is that I cannot find in favour of the complainant and this element of the complaint fails. |
Dated: 15/05/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Definition of dismissal, no dismissal established |