Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Labourer

Contractor

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-43805-011

28/04/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00043805-12

28/04/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00043805-13

28/04/2021

The worker was employed by the employer for three and a half weeks.  He was not paid what he was promised, and he did not receive a bonus payment.  He was not contacted by the employer in relation to resuming work after the Christmas break and he therefore took this to mean that he was dismissed.  The worker is also alleging that he was subject to treatment which amounted to bullying by the employer.  The employer denies the allegations in their entirety and believes that the worker had no intention of resuming work. 

The worker commenced employment on the understanding that he would be paid as a skilled worker (Driver).  The employer paid him less than the agreed amount and he did not receive a Christmas bonus.  The worker believes that the employer dismissed him when he raised issues about his pay.  The worker also believes that he was subjected to spurious allegations by the employer and that he was also the recipient of bad language on numerous occasions.  The worker believes that this occurred over simple matters that he did not know about due to the lack of training provided by the employer.  The employer also accused him of not working and sitting around smoking and playing on his phone.  The employee states that any time that he was sitting around was due to the fact that the employer did not provide the tools necessary and thus he was waiting for the employer to deliver the tools that he had in his van.  The worker also believes that he was required to undertake drug and/or alcohol tests before resuming work.  This was not done for any other employer.

The employer in this case stated that the worker was not paid as a skilled worker as he failed to provide the necessary documentation.  As this was a site safety issue, he would not allow the worker to operate machinery without the proper certification.  The worker never worked a full week during his three and a half weeks, and this resulted in him not getting the bonus payment.  The employer denies that he was treated in the manner described and he believes that the worker had no intention of coming back to work after the Christmas break.  The employer stated that he was told by the employee that he was not coming back until/unless he was paid the bonus.  The employer denies that he made any accusations against the worker. 

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. It is clear that this short-lived employment ended in an unsatisfactory manner.  I was provided with copies of correspondence, including text messages, and these clearly show that there was no clarity in relation to this employment. The three disputes in this case are linked and have occurred due to a failure on both parties to engage in a process that might resolve the disputes.

In such disputes the employer could have taken some initiative to bring this to a conclusion.  I note that the worker wrote to the employer setting out his concerns and outlining his expectations.  The employer’s continued use of text messages was not what might be expected, notwithstanding the casual nature of the employment relationship. The employee himself also contributed to this dispute.

Having carefully considered this dispute, and taking into account the contributions of both parties, I am recommending that the employer pay the worker the sum of €500.00.

Dismissal.  Bonus payment.