Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Truck Driver

A Distribution Company

Representatives

J.J. Killian of Ignite Business Solutions

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts.

CA-0051081

06/06/2020

A virtual hearing took place on 3 November 2020 but could not proceed for technical reasons. A face-to-face hearing took place on 11 May 2022.

The worker has made a claim of unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Acts as he had less than 12 months service.

The worker commenced employment with the employer on 9 September 2019 as a truck driver earning €120 net per day (€600 per week). On Friday 28 February 2020 he had a breakdown which delayed his deliveries for 3 hours 40 minutes. The Director rang him twice to check if the mechanic had arrived and if the truck was repaired. On the second call he told the Director he was chasing his tail and hung up as he was going to a customer. The following Monday, 2 March 2020, The Director called him to a meeting. He was told he was dismissed for “fighting with the customers”. He says he should have been told about any problems before being dismissed. There had been no complaints about his work before this.

He told the Director he was working the week out and he did so, leaving on Friday, 6 March 2020.

Following his dismissal obtained a three month contract in December 2020 and in March 2021 obtained permanent employment at a salary higher than he was getting with the employer.

The Director of the employer said he got a phone call from a customer complainant about the worker. He rang the worker who used bad language and hung up. The Director said he had never been spoken to like that before. He rang the worker back but there was no reply. So he sent him a text message saying they needed to meet because he had never been spoken to in that way before and told the worker to attend a meeting later that day.

When they met he dismissed the worker because of the bad language used by him and the way he had spoken to him; which the director considered to be gross misconduct. The worker said he would work until the end of the week; working out his notice.

The Director confirmed the employer did not have disciplinary procedures in place at the time.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions both written and oral presented to me by the parties.

This dispute relates to a dismissal which took place after nearly six months employment. The worker was never told of a probationary period and no mention of this was made at the hearing.

The worker says he did not speak to the director in the manner portrayed by him and he denied the use of bad language. The director was adamant this was the reason he dismissed the worker; he said he had never had anyone speak like that to him before. The worker also said no issues with his work to that time had been brought to his attention.

If the director considered there was a disciplinary matter he was entitled to initiate a disciplinary procedure. However, that procedure would have had to follow the provisions of S.I 146 of 2000. By the Director’s admission the employer had no procedures in place, so the worker should have been informed what procedures were going to be followed. Then the worker should have been invited to a disciplinary meeting, given the reason for the meeting and allowed the opportunity to bring someone with him to the meeting. At the meeting he should have been advised of the disciplinary matters and been given an opportunity to respond before a decision was made.

None of this happened and I conclude the worker was unfairly dismissed, within the confines of the dispute taken under the Industrial Relations Act.