Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Trainee Hearing Aid dispenser

Retail Outlet

Representatives

Self represented

No attendance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00036250-001

05/05/2020

The Complainant submitted a complaint that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment.             The Respondent did not attend the hearing and advised by email that they would not be bound by any outcome of the recommendation.

The Complainant stated that he was employed as a Trainee Hearing Aid Dispenser from 4th March 2019. He worked a 40 hour week on a salary of €32,000 per annum. He was visited in the shop after his last patient left on Friday 29th November 2019 by the Owner of the business and the Manager who proceeded to dismiss him with immediate effect. The Owner of the business told him to pack up his stuff immediately and he was effectively escorted off the premises in a very public manner. The alleged “gross misconduct” ground on which he was dismissed was stated to be failing a centre of excellence review and losing a contract. The Complainant was told by the Owner this “was not up for debate” and he was not allowed to speak. He was given no notice of the meeting and was not given the opportunity to be accompanied in the meeting.   The Complainant emailed the Respondent to seek the reasons for his dismissal in writing. He was informed that the reasons were (a) “failure to keep the team involved” about a contract and (b) failure to achieve “Centre of Excellence” Review.     He received three months’ notice pay as provided for in his contract of employment.                                             The Complainant outlined the situation from his point of view. He stated that in relation to the contract, he was informed by the customer that she wanted to arrange on site tests and he had assigned a number of dates for her, however she did not follow up and he had to let the dates go. In relation to the failure to achieve the centre of excellence review, the Complainant stated that in November 2019 he received notice of inspection and that he would be shown how to achieve the standards required. However, this was not followed up. The Complainant stated that he well aware of standards and he had in fact carried out a major clean out of the premises when he first reported for duty. He also stated that if the Respondent had specific standards the onus was on them to tell him. He gave one example that 1 of the reasons they did not achieve 100% success rate was the lack of a nameplate on the door.   The Complainant contended that the Respondent acted in an unfair manner by dismissing him without any fair process.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Complainant gave uncontested evidence of being subjected to dismissal from his employment in circumstances where he received no advance notification of the charges against him and no right to be heard, and he was subjected to a humiliating experience in a semi-public area and told to pack up and leave the premises.     S.I. 146/2000 is the Statutory Instrument which contains the standards expected in Grievance and Disciplinary procedures in employment. Specifically, the S.I. states that disciplinary procedures must comply with the principles of natural justice and fair procedures in that details of any allegations are put to the employee, that the employee is given the opportunity to respond fully, given the opportunity to be represented and the given the rightto a fair and impartial determination of the issues concerned.  In this instant case, I note and accept the Complainant’s evidence that he was told the issue was “not up for debate”. The Complainant was afforded none of the principles of natural justice and he was unfairly dismissed.

Unfair dismissal, no due process, S.I. 146/2000