Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Omobolaji  Ajobo

Wasdell Europe Limited

Representatives

  Self-represented

Éinde O'Donnell A&L Goodbody LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00049207-001

11/03/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00049207-002

11/03/2022

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 complainant took the oath at the outset of the hearing while two witnesses for the respondent (the general manager and a production manager) took the affirmation.

As a preliminary issue the respondent raised two matters the first related to which case is the complainant pursuing, the second to the issue of the timeframes envisaged by the Act. 

In relation to both complaints the respondent submitted that the complainant could not raise both an unfair dismissal and a constructive unfair dismissal on the same set of facts.  The respondent submitted that the complainant had been dismissed, fairly, and that the date of dismissal was 9 September 2021. 

The respondent submitted that the complainant cannot pursue a case of constructive unfair dismissal where he was maintaining a date of dismissal on the part of the respondent, that of 9 September 2021.  The respondent submitted that date was accepted by the complainant as his date of dismissal as it was noted in the application forms grounding these complaints and was confirmed by the complainant in written correspondence to the respondent dated 21 September 2021.  The respondent also submitted that the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act did not require a dismissal to be effected in writing and that if the legislature had intended that requirement, it could have worded the legislative provisions differently.

The respondent also raised the issue of the timeframes outlined within the Unfair Dismissals Acts, noting the complainant lodged his complaint outside the six-month timeframe envisaged under the Act.  In addition, it was submitted that the complaint has not provided any reasonable cause as to why the time period should be extended.

The complainant confirmed in evidence that he was dismissed on 9 September 2021 but suggested that as he did not receive a written notice of his termination until 24 September 2021 that this should be taken into account when considering the date of his termination. 

He confirmed that he was dismissed rather than resigned from his position and that this dismissal took effect from 9 September 2021.

The complainant confirmed that the termination of the employment relationship took effect with his dismissal on 9 September 2021.

CA-00049207-001 Unfair Dismissal

At the start of the hearing the complainant confirmed that he was dismissed on 9 September 2021.  He confirmed that he made submissions in writing to the respondent on 21 September in which he confirmed that he understood himself to have been dismissed on 9 September 2021.

The respondent submitted that as the complainant had only submitted his complaint to the WRC on 11 March 2022 his complaint did not fall within the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1997 which provided for a six-month period within which an applicant can lodge a complaint.

Section 8(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 states that

(2) A claim for redress under this Act shall be initiated by giving a notice in writing (containing such particulars (if any) as may be specified in regulations under subsection (17) of section 41 of the Act of 2015) to the Director General—

(a) within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal, or

(b) within such period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the relevant dismissal as the adjudication officer considers appropriate, in circumstances where the adjudication officer is satisfied that the giving of the notice within the period referred to in paragraph (a) was prevented due to reasonable cause,

The respondent submitted that the complainant was well aware of the fact of his dismissal and its timeframe.  The respondent submitted that although the dismissal was communicated verbally, it is not precluded under the provisions of the Act from doing so.  The respondent submitted that the complainant has not made out any argument as to why the six-month period should be extended.

Having considered the arguments presented regarding the timeframe by both parties, I am satisfied that the dismissal was effected on 9 September 2021.  Although this was rendered verbally to the complainant, it remains a valid dismissal.  No argument was put forward that this was not a valid dismissal, rather the only argument put forward was that the complainant was not afforded the option to appeal the decision.  The documentation submitted does indicate the that the complainant was afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision but did not do so.

Having considered this issue, I am not satisfied that the complainant has established that he was prevented from submitting his complaint within the six-month timeframe such as to warrant extension of that timeframe.  Accordingly, I find that the complaint was not made within the timeframe provided for under the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977.

CA-00049207-002 Constructive Unfair Dismissal

The complainant confirmed that the employment relationship did not come to an end as a result of a resignation but rather by way of a dismissal effected by the respondent.  On the basis that the compliant did not resign from his employment, I find that the complainant was not constructively unfairly dismissed.

CA-00049207-001 Unfair Dismissal

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complainant has not presented his complaint within the timeframe envisaged by the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

CA-00049207-002 Constructive Unfair Dismissal

Having regard to the written and oral evidence provided by the complainant, my decision is that the complainant was not constructively unfairly dismissed.

Unfair dismissal – out of time – constructive unfair dismissal – not established.