ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029819
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Yasser Alzahrani | Sodexo Ireland |
Representatives |
| Niamh Ní Cheallaigh Ibec |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00040481-001 | 19/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00040481-002 | 19/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/07/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were advised by letter dated 28th May 2021 that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. The respondent confirmed that they understood this and were agreeable that the hearing would proceed on that basis. It was also explained to the Respondent that where there is a serious conflict of evidence in the complaint before an Adjudication Officer that will require an adjournment of the hearing to await the amendment to the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 to grant Adjudication Officers the power to administer the oath and to provide a punishment for the giving of false evidence. The respondent also confirmed their understanding of this point and as the complainant did not attend his views were not heard on these points.
Background:
The complainant was employed as a kitchen porter with the respondent. He commenced employment on 04/03/2019 and was paid at a rate of €10.18 per hour. He worked 15 hours per week. The complainant was asked to sign a form in relation to mandatory training he received on 20/05/2020. The complainant refused to sign this form. This was a mandatory training programme and it was necessary for all staff to sign off to demonstrate competence in the area. The complainant left the site and explained that he left in order to contact his trade union. He did not report for work and there were subsequently a number of text exchanges with his head of department. The complainant stated that he would not return to work until issues he highlighted were “solved”. The respondent established an investigation process in relation to the complainant’s continued absence. The complainant attended a meeting 12/06/2020. As his absence continued and in the absence of any response from the complainant the respondent dismissed him on 29/06/2020. The complainant submitted his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 19/10/2020. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the virtual hearing on 01/07/2021. I am satisfied that he was notified about the date, time and connection details by way of e-mail and letter dated 28/05/2021. The complainant was in e-mail contact with the WRC on the day prior to the hearing. He submitted a short response to the respondent’s submission. On the day of the hearing the WRC made five telephone calls to the complainant over a 30-minute period, but these went unanswered. An e-mail was also sent to the complainant and no response was received at the time of the hearing ended. As the complainant did not make any contact with the WRC I decided to conclude the hearing after a period of 30 minutes. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing along with a number of witnesses. A written submission was also received from the respondent. The respondent was prepared to fully defend their case and submitted that the complainant unreasonably walked off site after refusing to sign off on health and safety documents on 20/05/2020. He failed to return to work after confirming on a few occasions that he would. In that context the respondent submits that the decision to dismiss was reasonable and fair in the circumstances and no unfair dismissal took place. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00040481 and CA-00040481-002 These complaints were received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission on 19/10/2020 alleging that the complainant was unfairly dismissed by his former employer, the respondent and seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The said complaints were referred to me for investigation. A remote hearing for that purpose was held on 01/07/2021. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing by e mail on 28/05/2021 of the date, time of the hearing. The complainant was issued with the log-on details and contact details on 29/06/2021 at which the hearing to investigate the complaints with the reference numbers CA-00040481-001 and CA-00040481-002 would be held. The respondent was issued with the same details and they had no difficulty in relation to the log-on link and details. The complainant contacted the WRC by e mail on 02/07/2021 to say that he did not know that the hearing was to take place. The complainant made further contact on 07/07/2021 to say that he did not receive any notification of the hearing. I note that the e mail address for the complainant did not change throughout this period. He responded to earlier communication from the WRC and no automated message was received to say that any e mail sent by the WRC was not delivered. From my enquiry in relation to this and as detailed above I am satisfied that the complainant was issued with notification and subsequently the log-on details in relation to this hearing. He responded to one WRC communication at 2.30am on 01/07/2021. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. |
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.
I conclude that this complaint is not well-founded, and I decide accordingly. |
Dated: 22/07/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal. Non-attendance. |