ADJ-00036112

Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

general operative

Employer

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 No Appearance

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00047333-001

24/11/2021

The Worker commence employment with the Employer on 25th May 2021. At all times his role was described as “general operative”. The Worker’s employment was terminated by the Employer on 19th November 2021.

On 24th November, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his former employer had summarily dismissed him without cause. No responding submission was received from the Employer. 

In circumstances whereby the Employer did not object within the statutory timeframe, a hearing in relation to the matter was convened for, and finalised on, 22nd July 2022. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing. 

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.  

The Worker was engaged as a general operative for the Employer. On the evening of 19th November 2021, the Worker enquired as to the status of his wages for the previous week. By response, the Worker’s manager stated that the Worker should not attend for work the coming Monday and the call was terminated.

Shortly thereafter, the Employer spoke with the Worker and rebuked him for allegedly terminating the earlier phone call. When the Worker began to explain that this was not the case, the manager of the Employer informed the Worker that he wished to “get rid” of him and that his employment was terminated from that date.

In answer to a question posed by the Adjudicator, the Worker stated that he was unaware of any issues that may have led to his dismissal on the date above.

Neither the Employer not a representative on their behalf attended the hearing as scheduled. I further note that no submission or response of any description to the Worker’s allegations was received at any stage of the proceedings.  Following the hearing, no explanation was provided regarding the Employer’s failure to attend the same.

Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Employer was aware of the time, date and venue of the hearing.

The present dispute relates to the Worker’s contention that he was summarily and unfairly dismissed. In this regard, it is apparent that he was not provided with any contract of employment, or for that matter, any substantive rationale for his dismissal. Notwithstanding the same, it is apparent from the account provided by the Worker, that he was dismissed for allegedly terminating a call with his employer.

In this regard, S.I. No. 146/2000, commonly referred to as the “Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures”, sets out a basic procedure which a Respondent should follow prior to dismissing an employee. These include putting the allegations to the Complainant in writing in advance of a hearing, allowing the Complainant the opportunity to properly defend himself at the hearing, permitting the appropriate right of representation, and allowing an internal appeal of any determination.

In the instant case, it is apparent that the Employer did not follow any of the steps outlined above, and simply dismissed the Worker without notice and for no apparent reason during a phone call. Such summary dismissal is clearly substantively and procedurally unfair and as a consequence of the same I recommend in favour of the Worker.

In circumstances whereby the dismissal of the Worker was procedurally and substantively unfair, I recommend in his favour.

Having regard to the totality of the evidence presented, I recommend that the Employer pays the Worker the sum of €8,000 in settlement of this dispute.

Summary Dismissal