Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Employer

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00041754-001

01/01/2021

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts and has submitted that she was unfairly dismissed (CA-00041754).

The Complainant had submitted a duplicate complaint (CA-00042058) and accordingly this matter was struck out with agreement by both parties.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 7th July 2020. The Complainant was employed  as a sales assistant and her gross pay was €7.38 per hour and she would work between 10 and 20 hours per week depending upon what shifts were available.

The Complainant, who was 16 at the time of her initial employment with the Respondent, was boarding in college in the west of Ireland and would travel back to Dublin at the weekend to work. However, the Complainant submitted that she was informed on the 3rd October 2020 by the Store Manager that she could not travel anymore for work and accordingly she was informed there was no further for her with the Respondent Company. The Complainant explained that the country was not in lockdown, at this particular time,  and there were no restrictions on her travelling for work. Regardless, the Complainant was informed that her employment with the Respondent was finished.

The Complainant took up alternative employment on or about the 1st June 2021.

This Complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st January 2021.

The Respondent accepts the background facts and the timeline in relation to the Complainant’s engagement with the Respondent company.

The Respondent was represented at this hearing by their human resources manager. Although, the Respondent accepted the material facts as submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent explained that the Complainant had never availed of the grievance procedure or the offer of employment in one of their stores in the west of Ireland. However, the Complainant explained she could not avail of this offer of alternative employment as the country had moved back into lockdown and she was also back in college.

In the course of the hearing of this mater, the Respondent very fairly accepted that there had been a breakdown in communication between the parties for which the Respondent took responsibility for.

Although the Respondent was not acquiescing in relation to this Complaint, the Respondent was prepared to make a good will gesture to the Complainant in a monetary amount. 

I have carefully listened to the evidence tendered and submissions made in the course of this hearing by both parties.

I have considered the case of The  Governor of Bank of Ireland v Reilly [2015] ELR 229 wherein the  Court stated:

“[T]he onus is on the employer to establish that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal and that it resulted wholly or mainly from one of the matters specified in s.6(4), which includes the conduct of the employee or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Section 6(7) makes clear that the court may have regard to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct in relation to the dismissal. That is however not to say that the court or other relevant body may substitute its own judgment as to whether the dismissal was reasonable for that of the employer. The question rather is whether the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to the conduct concerned – see Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Lindsay UK Employment Appeal Tribunal Determination UKEAT/0506/09/DM, August 19, 2010.

In Allied Irish Banks v Purcell [2012] E.L.R. 189, Judge Linnane stated:

“Reference is made to the decision of the Court of Appeal in British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] I.R.L.R. 91 and the following statement of Lord Denning MR at p. 93:

“The correct test is: Was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair. But if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, then the dismissal was fair. It must be remembered that in all these cases there is a band of reasonableness, within which one employer might reasonably take one view, another quite reasonably takes a different view.’

It is clear that it is not for the EAT or this court to ask whether it would dismiss in the circumstances or substitute its view for the employer's view but to ask was it reasonably open to the respondent to make the decision it made rather than necessarily the one the EAT or the court would have taken.”

In consideration of the above and  in light of the concessions made by the Respondent, I am satisfied there was a breakdown in communications between the parties which the Respondent has taken responsibility for. In the circumstances of this matter, I find it was not reasonably open to the Respondent to make the decision to dismiss the Complainant.

The Complainant seeks redress in the form of compensation as opposed to re-instatement or re-engagement as she has already taken up alternative employment. Accordingly, in consideration  of the goodwill gesture made by the Respondent in the course of the hearing of this matter, I recommend that the Respondent pay the sum of €2,000.00 to the Complainant.

I find that the Complaint (CA-00041754) made pursuant to the Industrial Relations Acts succeeds and recommend that the Respondent pay the sum of €2,000.00 to the Complainant.