Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Investigator

A Security Company

Representatives

  N/A

N/A

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00041337-005

30/11/2020

The Worker started his employment with the Respondent on 2 January 2020 and was paid a salary of €46,000. He stated that he was dismissed from his employment on 19 November 2020 on the grounds of gross misconduct and has alleged that this was unfair.

The Worker stated that he experienced several issues during the course of his employment with the Employer.

He stated that on 26/03/2020, while working on an investigation on his own, the Managing Director joined him at end of the day, and started, without any justification, to heavily criticise his work. He stated that this took his completely by surprise and claimed that he  was shocked by his tone and the content of what the MD said. Specifically, the Managing Director made reference to cultural differences and claimed that he found the Worker very difficult to deal with. The Worker stated that he was very surprised to hear this given that he had previously been employed by the Respondent on several different occasions over the previous 20 years.

Since that episode, the Worker claimed that the Managing Director took every opportunity to criticise not only his work but also treated him very badly in ways he never did before in previous roles.

Specifically, he stated that on 31 July 2020, one weeks’ wages was deducted from him without warning. In addition, on 18 August 2020, upon returning from annual leave from outside of the country, he found himself without a company vehicle, camcorder or work phone and was instructed to stay 14 days in quarantine, even though other colleagues who travelled from abroad were never asked to quarantine and the Private Security Authority (PSA) authorized the Company  to work during Level 5 Lockdown. Further to this he did not receive any wages for the month of August and was given no reasons for this. He also stated that on 17 October 2020 he was ordered to stay an extra night away from him to cover for another member of staff even though he had personal commitments to attend to. He also alleged that he often received calls late at night to be at a work location far away from his home at 6 or 7am the following morning.

He stated that he was ultimately dismissed by his employer on 19 November 2020 even though he should not have been in work because he had been asked by his GP to take time off due to the stress triggered by the Employer’s behaviour

Having been notified of the time and date of the hearing, a representative on behalf of the Respondent wrote to the WRC on 26 May 2021 and stated that they would “not be engaging in this Industrial relations claim” and would “not be attending the listed hearing”.

Preliminary Point:

It is clear both from the narrative on the complaint form and his evidence at the hearing that allegations have been made by the Worker which should be heard under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Accordingly, a separate hearing will be scheduled in due course to allow for these allegations to be addressed as well as adjudicated upon and I not intend to refer to these in this recommendation.

Findings: 

I have been requested to investigate this dispute in accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. In forming my recommendation in the case, I have considered all oral and written submissions advanced. I have also had regard to SI 146/2000, the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures. I listened carefully as the Worker shared his recollections of the events surrounding this employment.

I note firstly that the Worker had been engaged by the Employer at various stages over the previous 20 years, that the Employer had actively sought to recruit him into this position and that there was a good relationship between the parties when the Worker started his employment. While it is difficult to understand why the relationship deteriorated, and even though there may have been difficulties with the Worker’s performance, I must recognise that that the specifics of the alleged underperformance were not particularised, that the Worker was not specifically told what he was doing wrong prior to his dismissal and that he received no formal warnings at any stage.

I am therefore satisfied that there has been a complete absence of fair procedures in accordance with the general principles of natural justice as required by S. I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) and jurisprudence.  This is supported by the absence of any procedures whatsoever.  Other aspects of the Employer’s treatment of the Worker were wholly unreasonable including the manner in which he was treated when returned from travelling abroad.

In all of the circumstances I find the that dismissal of the Worker was both substantively and procedurally unfair.  While it is important that new employees are monitored as to the performance of their duties, they should also be given the necessary information and assistance to facilitate such an improvement. In light of the foregoing, I recommend in favour of the Worker.

I recommend in favour of the Worker and find that he was treated unfairly by the Employer. Having regard to the totality of the information presented, and given that the employment relationship has terminated, I recommend that compensation is the most appropriate form of remedy.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €10,000 in compensation.