Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Fitter

A Tyre Service

Representatives

Ibec

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

23/02/2022

The worker commenced employment with the employer on 6 September 2021 on a permanent contract of employment. The worker was dismissed on 4 February 2022. The worker stated that he was dismissed following a request he made to be removed from being on-call at night and that no warnings were given before his dismissal. The worker also stated that the procedure to be followed in the event of dismissal was not provided to him. The employer stated that the worker was dismissed during probation for refusing to work on-call.

The worker outlined that the employer verbally attacked him on 3 February 2022 when the worker refused to be on call for a second weekend in a row. The worker asked that he not be required to be on-call at night as he was exhausted, or if this was unacceptable to the employer, in the alternative that his rate of pay be increased to compensate him as he felt he was not being adequately remunerated for the damage that the hours worked were doing to his health.

On 4 February 2022 the employer called the worker to his office and asked him if he was happy in the job. The worker stated he liked the job but was not happy with his hours of work. The employer informed the worker that on-call was part of the job and that if he did not like being on-call, the job was not for him. The worker outlined that he was informed there and then that he had not passed his probationary period. The worker outlined that he had received no warnings prior to his dismissal. The worker was dismissed with immediate effect and paid one week’s pay in lieu of notice.  The worker stated that he did not receive a statement of terms of employment and was not aware that he was on probation.

The employer stated that there is a practice in the company of placing all staff on a six-month probationary period and that this would have been verbally notified to the worker on commencement of his employment.

The employer denied that he verbally attacked the worker on 3 February 2022 when he refused to be on-call for the weekend. Rather there was a heated exchange as the employer had been let down by another member of the team who was rostered to work that weekend and now the worker was also refusing to do the on-call. The following day the employer told the worker that on-call was part of his role and if he was not prepared to be on-call then the job was not for him. The employer stated that the worker then asked for more money for being on-call.

The employer outlined that the worker was technically competent and punctual but that he did not pass his probationary period because of his attitude and his refusal to work on-call.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant oral and written submissions presented to me by the parties.

The employer stated that the worker was a competent worker and punctual. In assessing the merits of this dispute, I am satisfied that the worker’s raising of a concern regarding being on-call and the effect that this was having on him was not a matter warranting dismissal. The manner of the worker’s dismissal fell far short of the standard of treatment that could be expected from a reasonable employer. An employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period. The requirements of SI 146/2000 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) apply in all circumstances where the termination of a worker’s employment is being considered.

I recommend that the employer pay the worker compensation in the amount of €5,000 in full and final settlement of this dispute.

Unfair dismissal. No warnings.