ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00034983
Parties:
Anonymised parties | A financial advisor | A provider of finance |
Representatives | None | None |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00035316-004 | 15/03/2020 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Date of Hearing: 22nd January 2021
Location of Hearing: Remote hearing
Procedure:
On the 15th March 2020, the worker referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. The dispute was referred to adjudication on the 22nd January 2021. The adjudication took place remotely as the Workplace Relations Commission is a body designated per section 31 of the Criminal Law and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The worker attended the hearing and two representatives of the respondent attended.
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The worker started his employment with the employer on the 9th May 2019 and this came to an end on the 17th September 2019. The worker says that he was unfairly dismissed. The employer says that the worker was on probation and was dismissed on performance grounds. The employer states that a termination agreement was reached by the parties on the 20th December 2019. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker outlined that he was not aware that he was on probation as he was not told of this and there was no statement of terms of employment or contract of employment. He said that he was building the business and not informed of any performance issues. He cited to not having a lap-top for some time, not having important documentation and not being able to access the offices as reasons for him being slow at developing business. While the worker spent time on the road, he attended the offices on the 17th September 2019 to collect his lap-top. It was then when the employer informed him that he was being immediately dismissed. He was escorted off the premises. The worker outlined that he had been in touch with the Department of Social Protection and a Department inspector was to call to the respondent premises. This visit was scheduled to take place a couple of days after he was dismissed. The worker submitted that the scheduled inspection and his dismissal were linked. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer outlined this matter was addressed in the termination agreement reached by the parties, whereby the employer paid €2,500 to the worker. The employer outlined that the worker had been on probation and was dismissed for performance reasons. The employer said that the worker was not following up on leads and building the business, despite being provided with training and the necessary IT support. The employer cited the lack of activity on the worker’s part, for example sending very few emails. |
Conclusions:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act requires that I make a recommendation in respect of the merits of this dispute. In each case, this is very much determined by the circumstances of the case. Every case presents its unique circumstances.
Here I note the difference between the parties regarding whether the employee was performing in the role and whether he was provided with the necessary resources. They also differ whether the dismissal was linked to the involvement of the Department of Social Protection. I note these differences. I also note that when the worker attended the workplace on the 17th September, he did not know that his performance and future would be raised with him, and that his future in the company was at stake. Whatever process there was involving the worker, it started and ended that day.
Included in the assessment of the circumstances of the case is what happened on the 20th December 2019. The parties agreed to meet to discuss their resolution of their dispute over the worker’s termination. While the worker hoped to be reinstated, he agreed to a termination agreement and a termination payment of €2,500. The agreement is clear that it relates to the termination of the employment and the dismissal of the worker.
The agreement represents the resolution by the parties of the merits of the dispute in respect of the termination of this employment. I, therefore, do not make a recommendation in the worker’s favour as the termination agreement already encapsulates the merits of the claim in respect of the worker’s dismissal.
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I do not make a recommendation in the worker’s favour as the termination agreement already encapsulates the merits of the claim in respect of the worker’s dismissal.
Dated: 22nd September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act / dismissal |