Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Hilary Fagan

Scoil Choca Naofa

Representatives

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-00045723-001

18/08/2021

The complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed.  The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.  The respondent emailed the WRC and provided details of an email address in which to forward correspondence and I am satisfied that the respondent was, therefore, on notice of the hearing. 

The complainant submits that she was employed as a bus escort from 1st September 2017 until her employment ended 26 July 2021 and her gross weekly was €268.00.

The complainant was employed to escort Child A on the bus.  The complainant would meet the bus at the school and then travel to Location X where the child lived and escort the child back to the school.  She would then escort Child A home at the end of the school day.  There was another Child (Child B) at the school who also required an escort and was escorted by their parent.

In June 2021 the complainant was informed that Child A was leaving the school.  She was advised by the principal that she would thereafter be escorting Child B in September 2021.  On 29th July 2021 the complainant received a phone call from the principal Ms C who advised that the board of management put it to a vote as to whom should escort Child B in September 2021.  The principal advised that the board of management voted that Child B’s parent should continue to be Child B’s escort.  Ms C advised the complainant that if they needed another school bus escort then they would be in touch.  The complainant has heard nothing since from the school.  She emailed the school on 7th September 2021 outlining her unhappiness but just received an acknowledgement of her email and nothing more.

The complainant secured another job around 29th October 2021 and found out that the respondent had not terminated her from Revenue and it caused a lot of difficulties for her to get that rectified.  The complainant gave evidence of her efforts to mitigate her loss and secured employment on 29th October 2021 and works 40 hours per week.  The complainant is earning more now than during her employment with the respondent and there has been, therefore, no loss in earnings.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and I find their non-attendance unexplained.  I therefore have only the evidence of the complainant to rely on, which was given under affirmation.

Section 1 of the Act defines dismissal in the following manner

“dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

Pursuant to Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1997 as amended, 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 are substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. The burden of proof is firmly on the Respondent.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and gave no submissions regarding the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal. The evidence of the complainant, who appeared as a credible witness was that she was aware that Child A no longer required a bus escort but that Child B did require a bus escort and that she had been advised by the respondent that it was more appropriate that she would be Child B’s escort and that she would therefore, be the escort for Child B and I note that the complainant had greater length of service.  She was surprised to get a phone call advising her that a vote took place and that she would not be the escort. The respondent failed to respond to the complainant’s letter of September 2021 and indeed never communicated any aspect of the termination of the complainant’s employment in writing. 

Cassidy v Shannon Castle Banquets and Heritage Ltd [2000] ELR 248 and Mooney v An Post 4 IR 288 set out the importance of fair procedures. The complainant was not afforded any fair procedures in the termination of her employment.  It is most extraordinary that the respondent saw it appropriate to terminate the complainant’s employment by not providing the complainant with any fair procedures regarding this decision.  I find, therefore, that the claim is well founded and that the dismissal was unfair. 

The complainant has secured other employment and has incurred no losses as a result of her dismissal, and I note that she is now working 40 hours per week instead of 20 hours.  I have decided that reinstatement or re-engagement of the Complainant is not a practical option in this case and that compensation is the appropriate redress in this case.  The maximum compensation payable in circumstances where no loss has accrued is four weeks remuneration.  I find that the dismissal was unfair and the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant the sum of €1,072, equivalent to four weeks pay.

I find that the dismissal was unfair and the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant the sum of €1,072, equivalent to four weeks pay.

Unfair dismissal, respondent did not attend, no procedures