Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Security / Maintenance worker

Community Body

Representatives

Self represented

Self represented

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-00034029-001

28/01/2020

The Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed following a dispute with his Supervisor.

The Complainant stated that he was employed by the Respondent from September 2017 to August 2019 through a Community Employment Scheme. He had a dispute with the Respondent which was subject to an Adjudication Recommendation ADJ-00020075, issued in July 2019. That Adjudication recommended that the dispute between the parties be referred to an independent mutually agreed third party for investigation into the matters raised by the Complainant. The Complainant however, was dismissed before this recommendation was put into effect.   The Complainant stated that he was entitled to a third year on the C.E. scheme as he had embarked upon a Level 5 Fetac qualification in Security and Operations. The Community Employment Schemes Manual provides: “All eligible C.E. participants can avail of up to one year on the programme. The duration of participation can be extended on approval by the Department by up to 2 more years if the participant is working towards a major award / industry recognised equivalent to support progression in employment.”

The complainant has established through freedom of information process that the Respondent wrote to Ms C in the Department of Employment and Social Protection to inform her that the Complainant would not be offered a third year on the scheme.   The Complainant contends that another C.E. participant was brought in to paint and that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

The Respondent contends that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed or dismissed at all.   His contract came to an end on 30th August 2019 and was not renewed as there was no business need to do so. The participants on the scheme were reduced from 2 to 1 at weekends and there was no longer a need for the Complainant and his contract came to a natural end.

The Complainant was employed on a Community Employment Scheme on yearly contracts for a period of 2 years from September 2017. I note that the scheme allows for a third year if the participant is embarking on a qualification which would support progression in employment. I note the Complainant was studying for a relevant qualification and therefore qualified for a contract for the third year. Despite the Respondent being aware of this, they specifically advised the Liaison person in the Department that they did not intend to offer the Complainant a contract for the third year.  In 2018/2019 problems arose with his Supervisor which were subject of a separate adjudication recommendation. I note that recommendation advised the parties to try and settle their dispute by way of a third party investigation.   This never took place. I find that on the balance of probability, the Respondent found it expedient to dispense of the services of the Complainant rather than offer him a third and possibly final year contract.  I have concluded that the termination of the Complainant’s employment was due to the differences and disputes between him and the Respondent, and that his dismissal was unfair.   I find that compensation is the appropriate remedy. I have not been presented with evidence of mitigation of loss attempts by the Complainant.   I uphold the Complainant’s complaint that he was unfairly dismissed and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €4,000 compensation.

Unfair dismissal, community employment scheme.