Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

An employer

Representatives

none 

none 

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00039169-001

13/08/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00039659-001

08/09/2020

The worker/complainant was hired by the employer/ respondent and undertook training for four days from 4 August until 7 August 2020 when he was let go by the respondent.

CA-00039169 – Industrial Relations Acts

The worker submitted that he was unfairly dismissed on the fourth day of training following disagreements with the trainer. He submitted that this arose from the bullying manner adopted by the trainer throughout the final day of training

CA-00039659 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The complainant submitted that he was not paid for the four days training that he undertook with the respondent prior to his dismissal.

CA-00039169 – Industrial Relations Acts

The employer submitted that following reports of a dispute between the worker and the trainer, it looked into the matter. Although the matters appeared to have been smoothed over at the end of the training course, following additional discussions it was decided that the worker was not the correct fit for the company and he was dismissed by way of a phone call later that evening.

CA-00039659 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The respondent conceded that it had not paid the complainant for the four days training that he undertook and sought to rely on a term in the contract of employment which purported to say that if an employee ceased employment in the first six months he would be required to repay any training costs incurred.

No written submissions were received from either party save the initial short paragraph describing the complaints on the worker/complainant’s original application.

CA-00039169 – Industrial Relations Acts

The employer indicated that it let the complainant go as upon reflection on the day’s events on his final day, they concluded that his attitude was not right to work with the company. The employer confirmed that at no time did it provide a note of dismissal in writing to the complainant and that he was let go during an evening time phone call.

Having considered the matters raised and the absence of any procedures or documentation governing the dismissal, I find for the worker.

CA-00039659 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The respondent indicated that the complainant was employed at a rate of €23 per hour and that a normal working week amounted to 39 hours. This was not disputed by the complainant.

The respondent submitted that it had in its possession a contract governing the complainant’s employment which indicated that if the employee ceased employment within the first 6 months, it was entitled to recoup its training costs. The respondent sought to rely on this provision to withhold wages from the complainant.

Having considered this matter, I find that the complaint was well founded.

CA-00039169 - Recommendation

Based on my findings, I recommend that the employer should document its policy on dismissal and should issue dismissal letters citing reasons in all cases where a worker is dismissed. I also recommend that where an employer proposes to rely on a non-standard provision contained in a contract of employment that such a provision is specifically brought to the attention of its employees and proposed employees in order enable them to take advice upon such matters.

CA-00039659 – Decision

Based on my finding above, my decision is that the complaint was well founded and award the complainant €717.60 in unpaid wages.

Unfair dismissal, Industrial Relations Acts, Payment of Wages award