ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026265
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mohammad Azher | G4s Secure Solution (Ire) Ltd Security, Facilities Managements |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00033039-001 | 12/12/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00041071-001 | 16/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00041072-001 | 16/11/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/11/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in June 2006. He was employed as a security guard and has worked in various locations in or around the greater Dublin area. He works 48 hours per week and is paid €1,200 fortnightly. A Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 16 November 2020 The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 3 November 2021 pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. |
CA-00033039-001 Complaint under the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
This complaint was withdrawn by the Complainant at the outset of the hearing.
CA-00041071-001 Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
In direct evidence at the hearing, the Respondent stated that following a thorough investigation into an allegation made against the Complainant a disciplinary hearing took place on 9 November 2020. The outcome of the disciplinary hearing was that the Complainant was to be dismissed from his employment with effect from 12 November 2020. The Respondent wrote to the Complainant and advised him of the decision and to make him aware of his right to appeal the decision. The Complainant did appeal the decision to dismiss him and an appeal hearing took place on 25 November 2020 at which the Complainant was represented by his union official. The outcome of the appeal hearing was that the Complainant should be re-instated. The Complainant returned to work on 29 November 2020. There was no break in service and the Complainant did not suffer any financial loss. |
Summary of Complaint’s Case:
In direct evidence at the hearing, the Complainant agreed that his appeal of the decision to dismiss him had been successful and he had been re-instated. |
Findings and Conclusions:
From the evidence adduced I find the Complainant was re-instated to his post without any loss, and crucially his service was continuous. It is noted that the Complaint Form was received by the WRC on a date between the decision to dismiss the Complainant and his internal appeal hearing. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
The complaint is misconceived. |
CA-00041072-001 Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00041071-001 above.
Dated: 26th January 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Continuous service, appeal. |