FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MFC FOODS LIMITED T/A DESSERT FIRST (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED) - AND - MR ROBERT BLAZSIK (REPRESENTED BY MS RENATA BENCSIK) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No(s) ADJ-00036008, CA-00038894-003 This is an appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00036008/CA-00038894-003, dated 29 November 2021) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). The Worker’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 21 December 2021. The Court heard the appeal in Waterford on 28 April 2022 in conjunction with two other appeals brought by the Worker: TE/21/30, under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, and PTW/21/1, under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time) Work Act 2001. The Complainant’s former employer, MFC Foods Limited T/A Dessert First (‘the Company’) did not participate in the within appeal although it did defend the appeals under the 1994 and 2001 Acts. The Facts The Worker was employed by the Company as an Assistant Baker from 30 August 2019 until his dismissal on 2 July 2020 for alleged gross misconduct. The Worker’s rate of pay was €10.50 per hour and he worked 24 hours per week. On 18 June 2020, the Worker was handed a written list of tasks to complete over the course of his shift on that day. An indicative period of time for the completion of each task was also stated on the document handed to the Worker by the owner of the Company, Ms Margaret Fleming. It appears that the Worker encountered a problem in completing one of the tasks on his list within the time period specified. This came about because the task in question could not be completed until a colleague had first completed an associated task. The Worker became frustrated and approached Ms Fleming in her office to complain about having been required to complete his list of tasks in a time-bound manner. Ms Fleming alleged that the Worker became aggressive towards her during their interaction. She subsequently invoked the Respondent’s disciplinary procedure against the Worker. A disciplinary hearing was held on 1 July 2020 and the Complainant was summarily dismissed the following day. The Complaint The Worker denies that he became aggressive when he confronted Ms Fleming on 18 June 2020. He submits that she should not have personally conducted the disciplinary hearing as this was a denial of his right to an unbiased hearing. He further submits that he wasn’t given an adequate opportunity to defend himself at the disciplinary hearing or to outline his version of events. He also complains that he was not furnished with a copy of the handwritten notes taken at that meeting. The Worker told the Court that he suffered ill-health for a considerable period after his dismissal and availed himself of illness benefit until February 2021. He was then transferred by the Department of Social Protection to Disability Benefit. He applied for approximately twenty-five jobs he said. He eventually succeeded in obtaining a job as a part-time driver and storeman. He commenced in his new job on 4 April 2022. He works twenty hours per week and is paid €11.64 per hour. Decision The Court finds that it was not appropriate for Ms Fleming to conduct the disciplinary hearing into a complaint that she herself had been spoken to in an aggressive manner by the Worker on 18 June 2020. Although the Company is a small business, the disciplinary hearing should have been conducted by somebody other than Ms Fleming even if that necessitated engaging an external person for that purpose. The Adjudication Officer upheld the complaint at first instance and recommended compensation of €1,008.00, being the equivalent of four weeks’ gross pay. The Court recommends an increase in the compensation payable to the Worker to €2,016.00 as being just and equitable in all the circumstances. The Court so decides.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary. |
