CORRECTING ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT,1997
The order corrects the original decision issued on the 28th June 2021 and should be read in conjunction with that decision name
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028655
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Security Analyst | Professional, Scientific & Technical |
Representatives | None | Sinead Egan DAC Beachcroft Desmond Ryan B.L. |
Complaint(s):
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-00038371-001 | 25/06/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/03/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell
Procedure:
In accordance Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint
This matter was heard by way remote hearing pursuant to the Civil law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
No objections were raised to the remote hearing.
Background
The claimant was employed from the 2nd July 2014 to the 5th June 2020 as a security Analyst. He was paid €3,200 gross per month the claimant is claiming that he was Unfairly Dismissed by the respondent
Summary of Respondent submission
The Respondent is an international global software company with Irish headquarters in Cork.
The complainant commenced employment on the 2nd July 2014 to the 5th June 2020
The respondent vigorously disputes the complaint made by the Complainant.
It was submitted that he was dismissed, after a scrupulously fair and thorough process, for gross misconduct with notice arising from the upholding of serious allegations against the complainant.
The respondent would be calling several witnesses to support their decision.
The respondent having learned that the complainant secured employed within three weeks after his dismissal and on that basis the respondent was prepared, while preserving their position to defend the complaint, to pay the complainant his three weeks loss of earnings.
Summary of the claimant position
The claimant stated that he was unfairly dismissed, and he raised several other issues.
He confirmed that he had secured employed within 3 weeks and on practically the same salary that he had when was working for the respondent.
Findings
Both parties made extensive written submission
The complainant confirmed that he had secured employment within 3 weeks following his dismissal by the respondent.
The complainant was informed that the adjudicator had only jurisdiction to deal with his economic loss.
I note the respondent’s position that they are prepared to defend the case but as the economic loss involved was only 3 weeks pay they (respondent) were willing to pay that amount.
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Based on the above finding as outlined I have decided the dismissal to be Unfair, and I award him(complainant) 3 weeks loss of earnings.
Dated: 28th June 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell
Key Words: