ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029874
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A worker | An employer |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00040085-001 | 26/09/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00040087-001 | 26/09/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the disputes.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The employer did not object to an investigation of this matter. The employer indicated to the WRC in advance of the hearing that it had received this complaint but that it would not be taking part in the proceedings. At the outset the worker indicated that there was only one complaint, the second complaint being a duplicate which was submitted in error. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The worker indicated that he had been let go without any of the usual disciplinary or termination procedures being followed. The worker indicated that he completed his nine-month probationary period and in his tenth month with the company he was invited to a ‘touch base’ meeting. During this meeting which lasted about five minutes, his employment was terminated with immediate effect. The worker indicated that he had received no prior warnings, and that he received the invitation to the meeting with only 16 hours’ notice. He was given no advance warning of termination and was not allowed to bring a representative with him. The worker indicated that the procedures outlined in the employee handbook were not followed. The worker indicated that he had not received any formal or informal warnings of alleged poor performance. Additionally, the worker indicated that the employee handbook outlines that dismissal is allowed to be carried out by one of the partners but that in his case he was terminated by a HR Generalist. The worker outlined his efforts to find alternative employment but, to date, has not had any success. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The employer did not make submissions in advance of the hearing. The employer did not attend the hearing of these matters. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the employer did not engage with the WRC process, it is difficult to make any findings other than that the employee was credible when outlining matters that occurred. On that basis, I find that there was no coherent reason given to the worker for the termination of his employment. I also find that the employer did not afford the worker any level of compliance with any of its procedures. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
On the basis of the information available to me, I recommend that the employer write down its procedures for termination of employees where their service is less than 12 months and that it complies with those procedures. Given that the employer afforded the worker no access to fair procedures and did not seem to engage with the worker in any meaningful way and having regard to his financial loss I recommend that the worker receive an amount of compensation equal to three months’ salary, i.e. €9,000.00, which I think is appropriate in the circumstances. |
Dated: 29/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Industrial relations complaint, no procedures followed, recommendation of compensation |