FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 PARTIES : GRIFFITH J ROBERTS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY O’KEEFFE & MOORE SOLICITORS) - AND - MR RYTIS SEDLECKAS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No:ADJ-00023937 Background The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in October 2006 as a hydraulic fitter/general operative. From time to time when work was scarce the Respondent would get staff to do other jobs including painting, unpacking deliveries, cleaning and servicing Director’s cars rather than laying them off. In the past the Respondent had sent several employees on a welding course to broaden their skill set but the Complainant declined to do the course. On the 19thApril 2019 the Complainant was asked to clean a Director’s car, he declined to do so and left the premises The fact of dismissal is in dispute as the Respondent’s position is that the Complainant resigned on the 19thApril 2019 and asked for his P45. The Complainant claims that he was dismissed. Complainant’s case It is the Complainant’s case that cleaning the Director’s car was not part of his duties. In his evidence to the Court the Complainant stated that on the 19thApril 2019 he came to work as usual and that it was a quiet day in that no major jobs were scheduled. At around 9.00am he was approached by Mr Clive Roberts his manager and one of the owners of the business who asked him to service and clean his personal car. It was the Complainant’s evidence he felt humiliated by this request and advised Mr Roberts that he would service the car but would not clean it. It was his evidence that he felt he was the only person asked to clean the cars. It was his evidence that when he said he would not clean the car that Mr Roberts told him if you are not going to clean the car don’t come into work on Tuesday. (Monday being a bank holiday) The Complainant’s evidence was that he panicked and said he had to leave and asked for redundancy and his P45. A few minutes later as he was getting ready to leave Mr Colin Roberts approached him about a work issue when he told Mr Colin Roberts that he was going home because his father had fired him . Mr Colin Collins did not respond. The Complainant left the premises and then contacted his Union who advised him he should attend for work on the Tuesday. On Tuesday the 23rdof April the Complainant attended for work as usual. Shortly after he arrived in work, he came across Mr Clive Roberts. It was the Complainant’s evidence that Mr Clive Roberts asked him why he was there and that he replied that he didn’t want them to be able to say that he had left the job voluntarily on the previous Friday. Mr Clive Roberts then asked him if he was asked to clean the car would he do it and he said no. It was the Complainant’s evidence that Mr Clive Roberts then pointed to the office and said your P45 is in the office. The Complainant then gathered his tools and told the Respondent’s he would see them in Court. Under cross examination the Complainant confirmed that he liked working for the Respondent and had no issues with them. He accepted that his job was hydraulic fitter/ general operative and that he had been offered the opportunity to upskill in terms of welding but had declined to do so . The Complainant also confirmed that over the years when business was slow, he had been asked to do various jobs like clipping hedges, painting and cleaning the Directors cars. It was his evidence that for the last eight years he had cleaned the Directors cars and that he had never verbally objected to doing so except on one occasion about a month earlier when he mentioned to another Director that he was not happy cleaning the Directors cars and was told that it was part of his duties. The Complainant did not dispute that on the 19thApril or the 23rdof April 2019 that he did not tell Mr Clive Roberts why he was refusing to clean the car. In response to questions from the Court the Complainant stated that he left his place of employment on the Friday about 9.15am having commenced work about 8.00am and confirmed that he was the person who raised the issue of the P45 on Friday 19th April 2019. Respondent’s case Mr Clive Roberts a Director of the Company in his evidence to the Court stated that when things were quiet the Complainant and other workers were assigned other jobs like cleaning the Directors cars, cleaning up, unloading containers and that had always been the way. On the 19thApril 2019 which was a quiet day being good Friday he had arrived at the workplace and advised the Complainant that he was leaving his car in to get serviced and cleaned. It was his evidence that the Complainant stated that he wouldn’t clean it. Mr Clive Roberts reiterated that he would be leaving the car in and he expected it to be cleaned. The Complainant then asked for his P45. Mr Clive Roberts advised the Complainant that it would take some time to prepare the P45. The next interaction Mr Clive Roberts had with the Complainant was on the following Tuesday morning in the workplace when he asked the Complainant why he was there. He told the Complainant his P45 was in the office. He asked the Complainant if he was asked now to clean the car would he, the Complainant said no. The Complainant went into the Office and collected his P45 he asked if they wanted to check his tools and they told him no. It was Mr Clive Roberts evidence that they did not check his tools because they trusted him . Mr Clive Roberts accepted in cross examination that the Complainant was a good worker. He also accepted that he did not try and persuade the Complainant to stay when he indicated he was leaving and asked for his P45. The next witness for the Respondent was Mr Colin Roberts. In his evidence he told the Court that on the Friday morning in question he noticed the Complainant talking to Mr Clive Roberts . He Mr Colin Roberts was walking over to talk to the Complainant about a scheduled job. When he went to speak to the Complainant about the job the Complainant said it is too late, I’m leaving, I will be looking for my P45. The next interaction Mr Colin Roberts had with the Complainant was on the Tuesday morning when the Complainant asked if he wanted to check his tools and he said no. Under cross examination Mr Colin Roberts accepted that he did not ask the Complainant why he was leaving The Law
Discussion While there is disagreement between the parties as to the exact words exchanged on the Friday morning, the following is not disputed;
Determination The Court determines that no dismissal took place. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld. The Court so Determines
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary. |
