ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031351
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Olawale Olalade O Noah | Musgrave Operating Partners Limited Supervalu |
Representatives |
| Conor O'Gorman IBEC |
Complaint(s):
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-00041628-001 | 20/12/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00041628-002 | 20/12/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/03/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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:
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 and two witnesses for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation. The WRC facilitated the attendance of a member of the public at the hearing |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00041628-001 The complainant submitted that during the investigation, disciplinary hearing and the subsequent appeal his representative did not communicate his version of events in the manner he wished. CA-00041628-002 e complainant submitted that his did not receive any notice at the time of his dismissal. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00041628-001 The respondent submitted that the dismissal was not unfair in that it ascertained that following a disciplinary process and a finding of Gross Misconduct, the complainant was dismissed. The complainant appealed this decision, but the original decision was upheld. The respondent submitted that the complainant was represented at all times throughout the disciplinary process, and subsequent appeal, by his union representative and that the respondent had acted reasonably and fairly at all times. CA-00041628-002 The respondent submitted that as the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct, he was not entitled to minimum notice. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00041628-001 The complainant agreed that he was permitted to bring representation to all stages of the disciplinary process. Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act states that Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. The complainant put forward the argument that his trade union representative did not put forward his version of events even though he told the representative his version. However, the complainant agreed that at all times he had access to his union and that at all stages of the disciplinary process, he was represented by his union. Having considered the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, it is obvious that the complainant is not alleging that the process was not carried out fairly, in that each of the steps in the process were carried out and he was entitled to representation at all stages. He confirmed that he was represented at each stage however, he raised some queries as the version of events that his representative conveyed to the investigative process. Having regard to the foregoing and to the evidence adduced at the hearing, I am satisfied that the process was undertaken by the respondent in a fair manner and accordingly, the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. CA-00041628-002 The complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct. Section 8 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 states that Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any employer or employee to terminate a contract of employment without notice because of misconduct by the other party. The complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct following a fair procedure. Under Section 8 of the Act the respondent has the right to dismiss such an employee without notice. Having considered the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, I am satisfied that the Act was not contravened. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
CA-00041628-001 Having considered all the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. CA-00041628-002 Having considered all the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was not contravened. |
Dated: 28th March 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal Act – fair and reasonable process - no unfairly dismissal – no entitlement to Minimum notice |