Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Marek  Urbanek

Marcin Gackowski Motors Limited t/a MG Motors

Representatives

Shane Mc Dermott Mullaneys Solicitors Bridget Kelechi-Njoku

 The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing

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-00034110-001

31/01/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00034110-002

31/01/2020

The claimant was employed as a mechanic with the respondent from the June  2017 to the 6th.Augusut 2019 – he submitted he was unfairly dismissed and did not receive his due entitlements under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act , 1973.

The claimant commenced employment as a mechanic with the respondent in June 2017 – he signed a contract on the 4th.Sept 2017 – he asserted that the respondent advised him that  according to Irish employment law he was not entitled to a contract until he had worked for 3 months .

It was submitted that the claimant was invited to a meeting with the respondent in July 2019 where he was told that the respondent was unhappy with his standard of work. It was submitted that he was given no indication that he would loose his job owing to this performance issue. It was submitted that on several occasions between the July meeting and the 9th.August , the claimant was told there was no work for him at the garage. On the 9th.Aug 2019  the claimant was invited to a meeting with the respondent and his wife – he was advised that the respondent was not happy with his work and that he was being dismissed. The claimant advised that he was also told that he would be welcome back when his work improved and he returned from holidays later that month. On the 13/14th.August 2019 , the claimant was given a letter dated the 6th.Aug 2019 by  a Mr.R.C– the letter advised the claimant that his employment was terminated with effect from the 6th.August .The claimant was given no notice of termination – his contract provided for 1 month’s notice.It was submitted that the dismissal was effected without any fair procedures being observed and that consequently it was unfair. The claimant tried to contact the respondent on  numerous occasions but was unsuccessful. It was submitted that the claimant endeavoured to secure alternative employment   and was successful in acquiring a new job on the 2nd.December 2019.It was submitted that the loss incurred by the claimant was €6,652.32  and that he was entitled to 1 month’s notice amounting to €8,453.99.

Having made an affirmation , the claimant stated in his direct evidence that he had been treated most unfairly by the respondent. He said that their working relationship was not bad  and that while a few situations arose and he had made a  few mistakes , there was no issue .The claimant advised that Revenue had credited his account with €4,000 whereupoon  the respondent insisted in accompanying the claimant to the bank , demanding that he donate the €4,000 to the respondent.The claimant stated that while the respondent told him sometimes that he had done something wrong there were no formal meetings held or warnings issued. The claimant said that at the July 2019 meeting the respondent told him that he was unhappy with his work but also stated that his doors would always be open for  him on his return from  holidays in  Poland. He advised the claimant that there was not enough work for him at that time .He told the claimant to get some rest and return after his holidays. The claimant said he understood it was a break in employment rather than a dismissal. The claimant said he did not receive the letter of dismissal until after the meeting with the respondent and his wife on the 9th.Aug.When he was presented with the letter of dismissal by Mr.RC , Mr.RC  translated the letter for him.

The claimant confirmed he was a qualified mechanic and asserted that he was qualified to conduct NCTS.He clarified that while he had arguments with the respondent it was mainly because the respondent wanted him to do illegal stuff such as the illegal removal of filters. He further contended that the respondent wanted him to undertake welding work even though he was not a qualified welder.  The claimant stated that it was normal to have arguments with work colleagues .When he had problems with his back , the respondent told him to return to Poland for treatment – when he returned the respondent sought  medical certification from the claimant  but he advised it was too late to obtain same at that point. He denied the respondent’s accusations about the  loss of an internet modem and stated that he returned same to the respondent via registered post. The claimant asserted that he retained documents and he had never received a written warning from the respondent. The claimant categorically denied the allegations of performance deficits made by the respondent in correspondence to the WRC.

The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.

I have reviewed the uncontested evidence of the claimant and the submissions made by the claimant’s representative – on the basis of the uncontested evidence of the claimant and the chronology of events as set out by his representative , I have concluded that the claimant was dismissed without regard to fair procedures , natural justice or indeed without an investigation – his contract provided that a full investigation would be carried out in all cases of dismissal. Consequently, I am upholding the complaint of unfair dismissal.

On the basis of the uncontested evidence of the claimant , I find he did not receive his statutory entitlement to notice – 2 weeks- and accordingly I am upholding this element of his complaint.

Unfair Dismissal / No evidence of fair procedures /No investigation