Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Operative

Retailer of tools and engineering services

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Smyth & Son Solicitors

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-00045949-001

03/09/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00045949-002

03/09/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00045949-004

03/09/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 67(5) of the Property Services (Regulation) Act, 2011

CA-00045949-005

03/09/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00045949-006

03/09/2021

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

CA-00045949-007

03/09/2021

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

CA-00045949-008

03/09/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00045949-009

03/09/2021

The complainant has presented eight complaints to the WRC. He alleges that he was constructively dismissed, penalized for having made a complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, denied redundancy payments, denied his notice entitlements and that the respondent made an unlawful deduction from his wages.

He was employed as a general operative with the respondent from 1/10/2018 until his employment ended on 25 June 2021.

His gross weekly pay was €450.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 3/9/2021.

 CA-00045949-001.   Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 1/10/2018.

The respondent sells tools and provides engineering services

Initially, he was employed as a picker in the respondent tool company, selecting items for packing and for onward dispatch to customers. When the cleaner left the company, he was asked to take on some of the functions of that role, such as reboxing items and keeping the aisles clean, which he did.

He described a series of hostile and aggressive encounters between June 2020 and May 2021with the respondent MD. This behaviour along with the respondent calling him a thief in front of colleagues left him with no option but to offer his resignation on 18 May 2021.

Evidence of complainant given under affirmation.

His employment was unremarkable until shortly after April 2020, when the respondent MD’s wife, Ms. A, who worked in the administrative section of the business started shouting at him concerning signing on for Pandemic Unemployment Payments.

In June 2020, the respondent MD called him to his office and told him that he was not to talk with staff about PUP. He told the MD that he did not think it was fair to be seeking PUP when the company was in full production. While, the respondent serviced the construction industry and that industry had reduced hugely, the respondent was still extremely busy with orders. The respondent MD stated to the complainant that he would be looking at him on camera and that he was to keep his mouth shut.

The respondent MD constantly asked him why he was doing something in a certain way; he insulted the complainant. He asked him if he was” f……g stupid”. The complainant would be constantly on the look out to avoid a confrontation. The respondent’s behaviour was designed to force the complainant to leave the job. The talk among colleagues was that the respondent wanted to give his son a job. The MD and his wife continued to castigate him for minor incidents. The respondent MD would approach him 2 -3 times a week.

The main reason why the complainant resigned was the respondent’s response to his borrowing of a roll of duct tape on 22/6/21. He asked the supervisor, Mr. C, the’ go to’ man in the workplace, if he could take some duct tape to fix a garden item in his home. Mr.C told him to grab some stuff. It was quite common for the complainant to ask the supervisor or another more senior person if he could borrow a tool and return it the next day. He paid for other DIY products and the supervisor knew this. The complainant did not conceal the duct tape. He left it on the windowsill in full view of the respondent MD. He discovered that he did not need the tape and returned it untouched the next day. He thought it was a used tape.

The MD assembled the workforce on the 18 /6/21; he told then they would be getting a pay rise. He stated, “Lads we have a thief in the house “and pointed his finger at the complainant. He told the staff that a roll of tape had been taken without permission and that this amounted to theft. Mr. C, the supervisor stated that he had told the complainant that he could take the tape. The complainant followed the MD and told him that he was not a thief. He asked the MD why he would not investigate the matter, ask C what he had requested.

The MD had put his reputation on the line. Months of intimidation had failed to work. The MD wanted to give his son a job. He said to the complainant,” I’m not accepting any constructive dismissal; go back to work.”

On 23 June, the MD told him that he was to finish on Friday 25 June. The complainant told him that he would be going to the WRC and the Labour Court if necessary.

The complainant never submitted his resignation in writing. His contract states notice should be submitted in writing. He was never offered a written contract. 

The complainant accepts that the 17/6/2021 is the correct date of the incident.

The complainant stated that he had bever been advised of any bullying and harassment procedures or of any grievance procedure.

Ms. A did payroll and holidays for staff. The complainant stated that she said to staff sometime in 2020- he cannot remember the month- that if they ever had a problem to come and talk to her.

There were 12-14 employees all doing the same type of work.

The effect of the respondent MD’s behaviour towards him necessitated him seeking medical help. He became totally stressed. Two days before the complainant left, the respondent stated, “in my book you’re a thief; you won’t get a job after here”.

Cross examination of the complainant.

The complainant accepts that the incident occurred on 17 June and that a meeting with the respondent at which he submitted his resignation took place on the 18 June 2021. The complainant stated that he could not remember the MD calling him in privately to show him the CCTV footage of the removal of the duct tape. The complainant disputes that the respondent advised him that he would investigate the incident. The complainant denies that the respondent told him that he would have to work his notice.

The complainant stated that he had never called in sick prior to his resignation or submitted any sick certs.

To the question that the piece of duct tape taken by the complainant was a neither used nor an old bit a stock item, the complainant stated that he was pretty sure that it was waste/ used tape. He had asked Mr.  C without identifying what type of tape he needed. He cannot recall if he took it from the shelf as a stock item. He did bring it back the following day.

To the point that there were no supervisors, only managers and that he should report to the Warehouse Manager, there 20 years and on a higher salary than Mr. C, the complainant stated that the custom and practice was to ask Mr. C the questions.  

To the question was it normal for staff to borrow tools, the complainant stated that it was permissible to borrow a drill and to borrow duct tape.

The complainant accepts that the employer cannot apply for PUP payments; it’s the employee who applies. -in reference to the comments allegedly made about PUP in June 2020. But he states that the MD told him to keep his opinions about PUP payments to himself in June 20.

The complainant confirmed that when the second lock down occurred in January 2021, causing a severe downturn in the construction industry – a massive customer for the respondent, he was advised to and did apply for PUP.  In January 2021, he was laid off and had to make many phone calls regarding his return-to-work date. He did not answer why this was not included in his submission.

To the point that the respondent will deny that a June 2020 meeting occurred about other than that the company would be claiming the TWSS, and employees’ wages would be topped up as a consequence, the complainant contests that this occurred.

To the question that the MD was too busy, he travelled abroad a lot, to be following him on camera, the complainant stated that there was a bank of cameras sitting on his desk, so he had sight of employees in multiple places.

In response to the respondent’s point that there was freeze on employment and hence little likelihood of employment in the company for the respondent MD’s son, the complainant states that he did the same work as the complainant and was frequently working part time hours in the company.

The complainant did not answer the question as to why he did not include the many phone calls he now says he made to the Managing Director, January – April 2021, concerning the end of his lay off and a return to work.

He accepts that he has no witnesses.

The complainant confirmed that he returned in work in April 2021 after the second lock down. He accepted that he was advised to apply for PUP.

The complainant confirmed that he received bonus payments in April 2021 and was this not singled out as claimed. The respondent acted fairly.

Mitigation.

He hasn’t secured alternative employment. He started applying for jobs immediately; he applied for 30-40 jobs from June 2021 to date. He went on LinkedIn, Indeed and applied to a jobs club in his local town. He did a 6–8-week course in interview preparation; it was a full-time daily course in October 2021.

The complainant worked with a takeaway deliver service from September to October 2022 for 5 hours a week for 6-8 weeks, for which he earned €50 a week.

 He had a couple of interviews in a local town.

He was offered a job which would have entailed a period away from home -a few months abroad each year. He was unable to take it because of his care responsibilities with a son who has a disability. He was offered a job with low pay in another nearby town.

 To the respondent’s point that he still works for the delivery service, he states that he does not  regard the delivery service as work.

Employment agencies told him that his age was a problem.

CA-00045949-002.     Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The complainant withdrew this complaint as it is a duplicate of CA-00045949-001.

CA-00045949-004. Complaint seeking adjudication under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

The relevant sections of the Act of 2014 were provided to the complainant. The complainant formally withdrew this complaint.

CA-00045949-005. Complaint under Section 67(5) of the Property Services (Regulation) Act 2011

The complainant formally withdrew this complaint.

CA-00045949-006. Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

The complainant maintains that he should have been offered redundancy.

Shortly before he returned to work in April 2021, the company made one or two roles redundant. A part time worker had been made redundant. The complainant’s role was excluded from any consideration as to whether his role should be at risk. He had to make multiple enquiries as to when he would be resuming work after the second Covid -19 lockdown.

He stated that the role of handyman and stocktaking was made redundant. Other staff could have absorbed the functions of his role.

He confirmed that he was replaced when he left.

CA-00045949-007.Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

The complainant’s service entitled him to two weeks’ notice. The respondent only paid him for the first three days of his two weeks’ notice. notice.  He was then told to leave.

CA-00045949-008. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

The complainant formally withdrew this complaint as it is a duplicate.

CA-00045949-009. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The complainant withdrew this complaint.

CA-00045949-001.   Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The respondent denies that the complaint was dismissed. He resigned on the 18/6/2021.

The first mention of constructive dismissal was when the respondent saw it on the WRC complaint form.

The complainant’s signed contract is missing from the files.

The allegation that the respondent MD pulled all the staff together on the 18/6/21 to announce that the complainant was a thief is totally untrue.

Evidence of respondent MD given under affirmation.

He is the sole MD of the company, an Irish division of South African owned company.

Then structure is that he is the MD, there is a purchasing director, a HR manager, a sales director, a warehouse manager and 8 staff in the office.

The complainant’s job entails picking the pre-ordered  items for onward dispatch to customers.

The complainant started originally as a picker but there were issues with his work. He liked the complainant, wanted to keep him so diversified his role. He was brilliant at his job as a cleaner.

Complainant’s complaints of abusive behaviour

The witness stated that he was bemused by them. He checked the complainant’s record and found no issue with his performance.  As to his supposed watching of the complainant, there were occasions just before Covid arrived when the company had to undertake restructuring. Sometimes the witness would be deep in thought looking into the distance and a person might say are you looking at me in a weird way. He replied to the questioner that he was deep in thought.

The witness denies that he ever used the language attributed to him by the complainant. It is not his way.

He doesn’t get involved in warehouse operations on a day-to-day basis.

The borrowing of the duct tape on 17 June 2021.

At around 16.45 on the 17 June, he saw the complainant put a roll of duct tape on the windowsill close to where he and other staff were about to sign off for the day. This item sells for about €7-8. This was an intact item for sale, still in its packaging.

On 18/6/21, the witness showed the complainant the CCTV footage. The complainant told him that Mr. C had told him that he could take the tape. He shouted at the witness, “I am not a thief”. The witness told the complainant that he would have to investigate the incident. The complainant then told him he was resigning.  The witness asked him was he sure that he wanted to resign to which the complainant replied that he was. The witness asked the complainant to work his notice and advised him to look for work during that period. The complainant followed the witness into the office and in front of staff, shouted, “I’m resigning”. The complainant acknowledged to the witness that the tape was still in his car; he did not return it after that.

The witness went to the warehouse, the Tuesday or Wednesday of the following week. The complainant had told all the staff that he had fired him. He continued to behave in an aggressive way towards the witness. He told the complainant to finish up that Friday. The respondent paid his wages up to date. A few days later he was paid arrears and leave entitlements.

The following week, after he left, he rang to say he did not get his wages, then he followed that up by saying “what about my redundancy”.

 The witness spoke to Mr. C who told the witness that the complainant had asked him if he could take some waste tape in the bin or wrapping tapeor a roll of branded tape. He had told the complainant that he could take some tape from the waste bin. He would not have authorised the removal of stock items.

He was not a manager. He fixes tools and guns. He had no authority. J was the warehouse manager, there for 20 years on a higher salary than Mr. C.

The company has a zero-tolerance policy for theft.

Protocol for borrowing stock items.

Normally there is no borrowing of single use items. Such items such as duct tape cannot be resold. You can’t take a roll of duct tape, return it used and expect to sell it to a customer in a used state.

 If an employee needs to borrow an item from the company, the employee must ask the witness or the warehouse manager, not Mr.  C who has no authority to loan items.

 Tools may never be taken without the witness’s agreement. If an employee advises the office staff that they require tools, the staff will ask the witness to agree to the loan. If tools had been borrowed previously, they must have been taken without his permission.

The witness when asked stated that the protocol for borrowing items is that they ask him or the warehouse manager. If they wish to purchase items, the respondent charges stock price. This protocol is not written down, but everyone knows that you cannot borrow anything.

Alleged conversation with the complainant about PUP.

In March 2020, on the occasion of the first lockdown, the company closed from March to May 2020 due to Covid 19. Sales were down 90% during the same period. All staff were laid off bar one. The company was classified as a necessity because they supplied farming co-ops. Once business resumed, sales went back up.

The witness explained to staff that the company who by now had secured the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme would use it to top up their wages so net salary would not drop.

The Directors took a 50% pay cut until the end of 2020.

The allegation that he forced the complainant out so as to give his job to his son.

This is untrue. His son had worked as a stock controller over previous 8 years in a part time capacity, then he moved into customer service and merchandising. He was not a picker.

Failure to use the grievance procedure.

The respondent argues that the complaint of constructive dismissal cannot succeed because the complainant  did not use the grievance procedure.

 The grievance procedure is not attached to the original contract, but it is posted on the staff notice board in the canteen. The witness never had a grievance taken against the company in 20 years.

Likewise, an Anti – Bullying policy is displayed on the staff notice board in the canteen.

The respondent’s solicitor maintains that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that the behaviour of the respondent was such as to leave him with no option but resignation. Furthermore, the complainant failed to use the grievance procedure.

The respondent requests that the WRC find against the complainant’s case.

CA-00045949-002.     Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

Noted that this was withdrawn.

CA-00045949-004. Complaint seeking adjudication under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

 Noted that this was withdrawn.

CA-00045949-005. Complaint under Section 67(5) of the Property Services (Regulation) Act, 2011

Noted that this was withdrawn.

CA-00045949-006. Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

The respondent had 34 staff in 2019-20; he has 42 in 2023.

The respondent states that no entitlement to redundancy payments arises.

The complainant resigned. He was replaced.

One employee who had been temporarily laid off approached the respondent in April 2021 and asked for voluntary redundancy.  He had been with the respondent for 4-5 years.

CA-00045949-007.Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

The respondent states that the complainant resigned on the 18/6/21.

The respondent told him that he had to work out his notice. Because of the complainant’s continued shouting and behaviour, the respondent told him to finish on the 25 June. He was paid up to the 25/6/21.

Evidence of the respondent MD.

 The witness stated that he did not specify a finishing date. He told the complainant that he would come back to him with a finishing date.

The complainant failed to comply with Clause 16. 2 of his contract which requires him to give a months’ notice or else forfeit one month’s salary.

CA-00045949-008. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

The complainant withdrew this complaint.

CA-00045949-009. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The complainant withdrew this complaint.

CA-00045949-001.   Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The dismissal is in dispute. The respondent states that the complainant resigned his employment.

It is accepted that the complainant submitted his resignation to the respondent on 18 /5/2021. But almost all of the details surrounding what happened after he submitted his resignation are contested.

The respondent’s acceptance of the resignation is contested. The complainant stated that the respondent told him that he was not accepting his resignation and to go back to work. The respondent’s evidence is that he asked the complainant if he was sure that he wished to resign, and the answer was yes. He told the complainant that he would have to work his notice and that he would revert to him which contradicts the respondent’s written submission that the complainant was told that he would have to work two weeks’ notice. The complainant did not attempt to undo his decision to resign in circumstances where he states that the respondent did not accept his resignation. Neither did the respondent make any strenuous effort to dissuade him from resigning.

There is no written evidence of any of the exchanges, the submission of the resignation or the respondent’s response which is curious. At the hearing the complainant did not contest the respondent MD’s evidence that he had continued to behave in an aggressive way towards the respondent, that he had told the staff that he had been fired or that he had gone into the office on the 18 May to announce to the administrative staff that he was resigning. Three days after finishing, the complainant asked about redundancy benefits and holiday benefits.

While the complainant states that his contract required him to provide written notice, he also states that he never received or signed a contract.

I find that the complainant accepts that he had resigned. His complaint, lodged with the WRC, identifies his complaint to be one of constructive dismissal.

He continued to work after what he found to be the most offensive statements were made to him on the 18 May 2021 underscoring the proposition that he was working his notice. The respondent gave no indication that the complainant refused to work the notice required him.

It is accepted that the complainant removed this item. Again, what happened afterwards is contested.

Relevant Law.

 Constructive dismissal is defined in section 1. of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 as

“The termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee is or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee to terminate the contract without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”.

The burden of proof rests with the complainant in a complaint of constructive dismissal. The tests for constructive dismissal were set out by Lord denning, MR in Western Excavating (ECC) v Sharp (1978) and repeatedly set out in subsequent complaints of constructive dismissal and described thus:

 “Conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract then the employee is entitled to treat himself discharged from any further performance”.

The reasonable test was expressed as

“an employer who conducts himself or his affairs so unreasonably that the employee cannot be fairly be expected t put up with it any longer, the employee is justified in leaving”

The proofs which the complainant must advance to prove his case are that the behaviour of the respondent and of which he complains corresponds with the requirements laid out in one or both of the two tests and was behaviour which left him with no option other than resignation

The contract test.

The complaint did not make out a case that the respondent had breached his contract.

The reasonableness test.

 Therefore, the second test by which the respondent’s behaviour is to be measured comes into play; did the respondent’s behaviour meet the threshold of behaviour so intolerable as to conclude that resignation was the only option?

Considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the essential question to be addressed is was it reasonable for the complainant in all of the circumstances of the case to terminate his contract of employment.

The duct tape issue of 17/6/2021.

The complainant in his own evidence stated that the respondent’s treatment of this matter was the main factor leading him to submit his resignation.

Firstly, I find that it was not unreasonable of the respondent to investigate the matter. The complainant in his evidence was unable to clarify if it was a used or unused tape which he had borrowed, and it appears odd that an employee would want to return a used duct tape. The respondent’s evidence was that he called him to a meeting on the 18 May to show him the CCTV footage at which the complainant submitted his resignation stating that he was not a thief.

The complainant states that he cannot recall this meeting happening but states he was called a thief in front of staff on the 18 May which is denied.

While it is accepted that the complainant offered his resignation on the 18 /5/21, there is scant agreement on what happened thereafter. The respondent states that he asked the complainant if he was sure that he wished to resign.

Alleged abusive behaviour by the respondent in the period June 2020 – June 2021.

The other reason why the complainant submitted his resignation was the manner in which the respondent had engaged with him since June 2020.

The behaviour which the complainant attributed to the respondent, and which is contested was demeaning and unacceptable but the onus in a case of constructive dismissal lies with the complainant to prove that the behaviour occurred and was such that he could no longer tolerate it. The statements and incidents of which he complains are denied. There is no witness evidence to support these competing versions of what led the complaint to submit his resignation. The complainant at one point was in receipt of legal advice and the need for witnesses in such circumstances would probably have been brought to his attention. I accept that if the nature of the workplace was as he described it, witnesses might be difficult to acquire but there are means to address this.  Again, the burden of proof lies with the complainant.

On the basis of the evidence, it is not possible to conclude that these behaviours and incidents, unmentioned until September 2021 and after he had resigned, occurred as described.

Requirement to use the grievance procedure.

The requirement to give the employer an opportunity to rectify matters and activate the grievance procedure in cases of constructive dismissal was identified in McCormack V Dunnes Stores, UD,1421/2008. The Court stated

“The notion places a high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve her grievance with his /her employer. The employee would need to demonstrate that that the employer’s conduct was so unreasonable as to make the continuation of the employment with the particular employer intolerable”

This conclusion on the necessity to use a grievance procedure prior to resigning was followed in Terminal Four Solutions v Rahman, UD 898/2011 and in many other decisions.

The complainant did not activate the grievance procedure

 I note that the grievance procedure was publicised on a staff notice board. The complainant states that he was unaware of it. Accepting that he was unaware of the grievance procedure, and that there was inadequate disclosure of its existence, McCormack held that informal methods must be used prior to a resignation. Unfortunately for the complainant, he gave no evidence of ever having objected to or taken issue with any of demeaning, abusive statements which he attributes to the respondent. This absence undermines the reality of the behaviour complained of.

I found the complainant’s sense of hurt to be genuine in circumstances where he believed that he had done nothing wrong in borrowing the duct tape and alongside that, the respondent’s notification to him that he operated a zero-tolerance policy of theft. I find that the response to the incident of 17 May 2021 got out of control prompting an overly hasty submission by the complainant of his resignation.

On the basis of the evidence and authorities, I do not find that the complainant has met the heavy burden of demonstrating that the respondent’s behaviour was so intolerable as to leave him with no choice but to resign on the 18 May 2021.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

CA-00045949-002.     Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The complainant withdrew this complaint.

CA-00045949-004. Complaint seeking adjudication under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

The complainant withdrew this complaint.

CA-00045949-005. Complaint under Section 67(5) of the Property Services (Regulation) Act ,2011

The complainant withdrew this complaint.

CA-00045949-006. Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

This complaint refers to the failure of the respondent to make his role redundant and enable him to acquire redundancy payments.

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2022 provides for a redundancy payment where a redundancy which meets the statutory definition arises. This claim for redundancy payment must, therefore, be based on the premise that a genuine redundancy situation arose in April 2021 as per section 7 (2) of the Acts which provides as follows:

“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

 [(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained”

None of the above provisions of section 7(2) apply in the instant case. The role was not identified for redundancy. He was replaced when he left. The work force has grown from 34 staff in 2019-20 to 42 in 2023. 

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

CA-00045949-007.Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The complaint submitted his notice on 18 /6/21. He continued to work his notice until that was aborted by the respondent three days into the notice period, when the respondent informed him that he was to finish on Friday 25/6/21. The respondent was inconsistent concerning the length of notice which he gave to the complainant insofar as his written submission stated he gave him two weeks and his oral evidence was that he told the complainant that he would revert to him with the required notice period.  He states that the complainant failed to comply with a contractual obligation, but it was the respondent who denied the complainant the opportunity to complete his notice period.

The only notice entitlements which arise in this complaint are those found in the Act of 1973 as amended.

Section 4(2)(b) of the Act entitles an employee with the complainant’s service  to two weeks’ notice. The respondent states that he paid him one week. Therefore, I find that the complainant is entitled to the sum of €450 which represents one week’s notice, subject to all lawful deductions.

CA-00045949-008. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00045949-009. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00045949-001.   Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

CA-00045949-002.     Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00045949-004. Complaint seeking adjudication under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00045949-005. Complaint under Section 67(5) of the Property Services (Regulation) Act ,2011.

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00045949-006. Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

CA-00045949-007.Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

I find this complaint to be well founded. I require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €450 which represents one week’s notice, subject to all lawful deductions.

CA-00045949-008. Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00045949-009. Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This complaint was withdrawn.

Constructive dismissal; resignation, notice payments.