LCR22290

1.Employment terminated with immediate effect. Seeking compensation for loss of earnings.

BACKGROUND:

2.The case concerns a claim by the Worker that she was unfairly dismissed without recourse to fair procedure.

The Company did not attend the hearing.

On 9 September 2020, the Worker, referred this dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 October 2020.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS

The Company failed to follow fair procedures or principals of natural justice when it terminated her employment.

The Worker was not made aware of any lack of confidence in her ongoing role or that her employment was at risk.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:


The Company did not attend the hearing.



RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim of unfair dismissal.

The Court finds it regrettable that Management objected to attending the Adjudication Service of the Workplace Relations Commission and that the Claimant was left with no option but to process the matter under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Court notes that the contract of employment provided to the Claimant does not include details of its disciplinary procedures.

The Claimant was employed as a Business Development Manager and commenced her employment with the employer on 16^thSeptember 2019. She was informed that the role involved strong growth opportunities and access to the company ESOP scheme. Her employment was terminated during her probationary period on 18th February 2020. At the time she was informed that the reason for the termination of her employment was related to the company’s financial difficulties. The Claimant said that the CEO had promised to provide her with an excellent reference to support her future employment endeavours. However, she later discovered that three days prior to her dismissal, the company had been awarded a substantial investment equal to 25% stake in the company. She never received the promised reference.

The Claimant claimed that her dismissal was in breach of fair procedures and her contractual rights. She was not afforded the real reasons for her dismissal and she was never given the opportunity to have a performance review.

The Claimant outlined the details of her employment and stated that by the beginning of December 2019, her role and duties were changed to a sales function, pending the recruitment of a Sales Director. Following three days sick leave, when she returned to work on 18^thFebruary 2020, the CEO informed her that her employment was being terminated with immediate effect. As he was leaving to catch a train at the time, the Claimant said that she was not given the opportunity to discuss the matter with him and only discovered five weeks’ later that there was an alternative reason for her dismissal. She submitted to the Court that in such circumstances she was denied the opportunity to exercise her rights and appeal the decision.

The Claimant told the Court that she had wrapped up her consultancy business, as the instigation of the employer, in order to take up the role in the company and when she sought support to work towards potentially reverting to her consultancy role, it was initially offered, and subsequently revoked. The CEO wrote to her on 19^thFebruary 2020 and stated that he“was more than happy to support you with the fledgling business and give a reference for the project”.The Court also notes that the Claimant was instrumental in the company securing the substantial investment referred to above. By 26^thMarch 2020, following her lodging claims with the Workplace Relations Commission, the CEO informed her that in line with its company policy“we would provide a truthful written Statement of Employment and that remains the position”. However, that statement has also not been provided to the Claimant.

Having heard the uncontested evidence of the Claimant the Court is satisfied that the manner of her dismissal fell far short of the standard of fairness that could be expected from a reasonable employer. The Claimant was given an incorrect reason for the dismissal at the time and was denied an opportunity to address any concerns the employer may have had. At no point was the Claimant ever advised that there were any difficulties with her employment or that her employment was in jeopardy.

The Court finds that the lack of procedures and fairness in the Claimant’s dismissal is contrary to the most basic requirements of procedural fairness and good practice. It is also contrary to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure (S.I. No. 146 of 2000). That Code of Practice is made pursuant to section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and the Court is required by section 42(4) of that Act to have regard to its provisions in deciding on any case to which it relates. For these reasons the Court finds that the dismissal of the Claimant was unfair.

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the company should pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €18,000 in settlement of her claim arising from her dismissal. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this Recommendation. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the Statement of Employment should be furnished to the Claimant with immediate effect.


The Court so recommends

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Caroline Jenkinson
NJ	______________________
13 November 2020	Deputy Chairman