Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anthony  Feeney

Quarryview Developments Limited

Representatives

Mark Walsh Kenny Stephenson Chapman Solicitors

Cathal O'Dea O'Dea Law

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-00039288-001

20/08/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00039288-002

20/08/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00039288-003

20/08/2020

The complainant alleges that he was unfair dismissed from is employment.

The complainant worked for the Respondent. He worked Monday to Friday and some Saturdays when they were busy. On 9 May 2020 the Respondent called him, but he missed the call. He then sent him a text asking the Complainant if he could call up to his house. He did call up to the house later on that day. That was unusual as he never called up to the house. He accused the Complainant of taking a drill on  the 13th March. He then told him he was fired by stating “you no longer work for Quarryview”. The Complainant remembers him talking about the drill some weeks earlier because it had gone missing. He didn’t talk to the Complainant about it back then. The Complainant asked him repeatedly who had told him that he had taken the drill. He wouldn’t tell him. Prior to the dismissal there was no investigation, no meetings, no allegations, no procedures were followed at all. The Complainant denied the allegation. The Complainant then rang all of his colleagues and asked then if they had informed the Respondent that he had taken the drill. They all said no.

The Complainant was dismissed without notice. He was not paid his minimum notice pay. Furthermore, when he started with the Respondent, he wasn’t given his written terms of employment.

The Complainant secured new employment in approximately ten days. He was earning more money in the new job than with the Respondent. He stayed in that job for nine months and then he moved on.

The Respondent entity was incorporated in 2004. There are ten employees. Mr. Doyle, the Managing Director, noticed in or around March that a drill worth about €400.00 was missing. He asked all the employees about it and if they know of its’ whereabouts. Then the drill just reappeared in the van. An employee told Mr. Doyle that the Complainant had taken the drill and then replaced it when he was finished with it.  He called the Complainant to discuss it with him. That was on the 9th May.  He didn’t answer the call. He sent a text. No reply.  He then called up to house to talk to him face to face. When outside his house he asked him straight out if it was him who had taken the drill. He said it wasn’t. He said they would leave it for now and he would go and get some advice on it. He told the Complainant to get advice too. Mr. Doyle states that he wasn’t accusing him of stealing the drill he was asking him if had borrowed it.  Lockdown ended on the 16th May. He found out that he was working for someone else. Mr. Doyle had fully intended to contact the Complainant to come back to work after the lockdown was over.

Mr. Doyle accepts that he didn’t get written terms of employment on the commencement of his employment.

Unfair Dismissal.

The was a conflict in relation to the Complainant’s and the Respondent’s evidence. What is not in issues is the fact that a drill went missing for a period of time and that on the 9th May, Mr. Doyle called up to the Complainant’s house to ask him about it. Following that conversation Mr. Doyle says that the Complainant resigned and the Complainant states that he was fired. Both the Complainant and the Respondent agree that Mr. Doyle at the end of conversation said that he was going to get some advice on the matter and advised the Complainant to get some too. He says he did that because he needed to know if there was anything he could or should do if an employee takes items without permission. He did fully accept that the Complainant had not stolen the drill but had merely borrowed it without permission.  Both parties agree that Mr Doyle stated he was going to get advice on the misappropriation of the drill. Based on that I find that Mr. Doyle had formed the belief that the Complainant had taken the drill without permission and following on from the conversation they had about the misappropriation of the drill and the Complainant’s denial of same, that he did dismiss the Complainant or at the very least used words that were interpreted by the Complainant as a dismissal. The fact is he never contacted him again after that day. Furthermore, I find that no procedures whatsoever where followed, thus breaching the Complainant’s right to a fair process.

The complaint is well founded.

The Complainant commenced working for another entity ten days later.  On that basis I award him   € 1,260.00.

CA-00039288-002

The Respondent accepts that the Complainant was never given his written terms of employment.

I find that the complaint is well founded and award the Complainant four weeks amounting to € 2,520.00

CA-00039288-003

The Respondent accepts that the Complainant was not paid his minimum notice pay. He commenced on the 19.08.2015 and his employment was terminated on the 09.06.2020. On that basis he is entitled to 2 weeks notice amounting to € 1,260.00

CA 39288 – 001  The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant € 1,260.00

CA 39288 – 002  The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant € 2,520.00

CA 39288 – 003  The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant € 1,260.00