ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032475

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Jerome Anderson	Active Security Management

Representatives

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts	CA-00043070-001	15/03/2021

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/09/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline Reidy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 – 2015 following 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 evidence relevant to the dispute. The claim herein was heard remotely in circumstances where a general restriction, on face-to-face hearings arising out of the COVID19 pandemic, was in place, therefore I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

I also explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021 and the parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that decisions issuing from the WRC would disclose their identities as the parties would be named.

I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.

Oral evidence was presented by both the complainant and the respondent. The parties were offered the opportunity to cross examine on the evidence submitted.

Evidence was given under Oath or Affirmation.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a Security Guard. He commenced employment on 18 April 2020 and his employment ended 12 March 2021. The Complainant did not have 12-month service and was taking a claim under the Industrial Relations Act that he was unfairly dismissed. He said he worked a 48–60-hour week.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant stated he was dismissed for something that happed 4 months ago which was not his fault because he had finished his shift. The Complainant confirmed he was late one morning but had called ahead of time as there was a road accident on the M50. He had brought the keys to the security hut home with him by mistake and the Respondent had to get a locksmith to change the lock. The Complainant stated the Respondent said he did not do a patrol of the site when leaving which the Complainant stated was a lie. He stated the Respondent never brought him into the office to discuss the issues and he received no verbal or writing warnings.

The Complainant confirmed he received a letter stating his employment was terminated because he was late due to an issue, referring to the gate being locked which he said it was not his responsibility. He confirmed he received a contract but didn’t know where it was. He stated when that second issue occurred, he didn’t bring it up at the time and only referred to it when he was being dismissed. He stated he then received a letter email outlining his termination, but he didn’t have a meeting or get an opportunity to defend himself.

The Complainant confirmed he did not receive his payslip or was paid his overtime.

The Complainant confirmed he had been on PUP since his termination and does not have another job but is trying to secure another type of job as he would like a delivery/courier job now. He stated he was willing to learn in this role.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent emailed on 24 September 2021 stating they were not attending the hearing. PRU confirmed the hearing would go ahead in their absence if they did not attend and it did accordingly.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 13 (1) and (2) of Industrial Relations Act, 1990 states the below.

13.— (1) The Minister may from time to time appoint a person who shall be known as and is in this Act referred to as a rights commissioner to carry out the functions assigned to him by this section.

13. - (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled—

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and

(ii) notify the Court of the recommendation.

(b) A rights commissioner shall not investigate a trade dispute—

(i) if the Court has made a recommendation in relation to the dispute, or

(ii) if a party to the dispute notifies the commissioner in writing that he objects to the dispute being investigated by a rights commissioner.

The Complainant had less than 12 months service at the time of his dismissal. The Respondent did not attend the hearing and wrote to the WRC to confirm same in advance of the hearing. No fair process or the rules of national justice were adhered to in this case. The Complainant received a summary dismissal letter. He has since been looking for alternative work as a driver/courier rather than security guard.

Recommendation:

Section 13 (1) and (2) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 – 2015 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

The employee was dismissed without any fair procedures being followed which is against the rules of natural justice despite him not having 12 months service.

I therefore recommend an award of €11.65 x 40 hours x 12 weeks as compensation. The employee had decided to pursue an alternative role which he needs to upskill for alternative role he is pursuing I have taken this into account in my award.

Dated: 17-01-2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline Reidy

Key Words: