Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Stockperson

Pig Farming Company

Representatives

none 

Thomas Barry Thomas Barry & Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00040622-001

26/10/2020

The Employee, who worked as a stockperson, contends that he was not afforded fair procedures when he was dismissed by the Employer, a pig farming company, and that this dismissal was consequently unfair. The Employer asserts that the dismissal was fair in all respects. The Employee commenced employment on 9 March 2020 and his contract was terminated on 16 October 2020. He worked 44 hours per week and was paid €1000.00 fortnightly: net €861.94.  

The Employee submits that he was a punctual and efficient worker. He helped at weekends when the Employer was short staffed and submits that he was declared a ‘good asset’ for the Employer at one stage of his employment. He had received a pay rise to €1091. This was reduced back to €1000 when he queried the bank holiday arrangements with the Employer. He submits that he was called in to the office on 5 October 2020 and after a discussion with the Employer, was told that there was going to be a change in the workplace set up where he was employed. He received a one-week letter of notice of dismissal which read:

“Dear X,

We regret to inform you that we will be terminating your employment on Friday 16 October2020. We wish you well in the future,

Yours Sincerely…”

The Employee submits that he was not afforded any disciplinary procedures and if there were issues about performance or attendance, which he states there were none, he should have at least been allowed to address them.

The Employee commenced new employment from 1 January 2020 where he is paid €11 per hour for a forty-hour week.

The Employer submits that issues arose regarding the performance and commitment of the Employee. The General Manager outlined the nature of the business and how important training and development was for the company, especially in an era of increased regulation for the industry. His opinion was that the Employee was not pulling his weight in training and in other performance areas. He went on to state that feedback from the Employee’s colleagues was not positive.   

The owner of the business described meeting the Employee on at least two occasions where he states that he raised performance issues with the Employee. He gave an account of the meeting on the day of notice of termination, 5 October 2020.  He outlined that the reasons for dismissal were that things were not working out between the company and the Employee. He suggested to the Employee that he was planning to have a new set up at the unit where he was employed and that would necessitate change.

In Beechside Company Limited T/A Park Hotel Kenmare v A Worker LCR21798, The Labour Court stated: “The Court has consistently held the view that it is imperative that an employer in a dismissal case must not only show that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal but also that fair and proper procedures were followed before the dismissal takes place. This requirement of procedural fairness is rooted in the common law concept of natural justice.”

The disciplinary section of the Employee’s contract referenced the Employer’s procedures as being based upon the grievance and disciplinary principles as laid down in S.I. 146 of 2000.  When pressed upon this reference both the General Manager and the Owner of the business professed no knowledge of the advised procedures under the statutory instrument nor any knowledge of what are considered be fair procedures in disciplinary procedures. This is borne out graphically in the letter of notice of dismissal which contains two sentences: one sentence devoid of the reasons for dismissal and the other sentence wishing the Employee well.

The Employer submitted that performance issues such as having a positive attitude to training, not being a team worker and a general lack of application were brought to the Employee’s attention. The Employee denied any such issues were raised at meetings. I found the Employee’s account more plausible on this point.

The function of a tiered disciplinary procedure is behaviour modification. The usefulness and inherent fairness of a proper system where cautions, verbal and written warnings are employed, is well validated. No such instruments were availed of by the Employer in this case. There is no doubt in my mind that the manner of dismissal was unreasonable in that no procedures were adhered to nor was there a valid reason for dismissal given. I find it was an unjust summary dismissal.

However, this finding should not be interpreted in such a way that the account of the Employer should be discounted in its entirety. I conclude, after hearing all submissions, that the Employer had legitimate concerns about the work performance of the Employee. Both the General Manager and Owner gave plausible accounts of the unsatisfactory performance of the Employee.  This fact does not absolve the Employer from the subsequent patent unfairness of its actions, but it does point to the fact that the Employee contributed significantly to his own dismissal.  I believe that the compensatory amount should reflect this reality.

I find that the manner of dismissal was unreasonable and devoid of any fairness and I recommend that the Employer should compensate the Worker by way of payment of €6,500 to the Employee, equivalent to 25% of yearly salary, and that the Employee should accept this sum as a full and final settlement of the unfair dismissal dispute.

Industrial Relations Act 1969, unfair dismissal.