Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Executive

A Food Business

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

S 13 Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

CA-00054331-001 and CA-00054990-001

02/01/2023

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation

On Wednesday 31st August 2022 the complainant receivedverbal notice that he had been selected to be let gofrom his employment.  Herequested ameeting toseekclarification on thematter.

The meeting took place on Tuesday September 6th and the reasons given related to his ability to have good relationships with lorry drivers and store managers.  This came as a complete shock to him as no such issue had ever been raised prior to this meeting.

Further to that he understood from his managers during the course of this meeting that he had been expected to have an almost bullying approach to drivers in order to get them to perform properly.

He feels that, had his employer addressed such matters with him and afforded him the opportunity to improve where they felt he had not met the required standards, this would have allowed natural justice to prevail with the potential to resolve any such matters.

Unfortunately, this was not done, and he was let go from their employment. He had previously worked with the respondent some years ago.

He said that no issues had ever been raised with him about his performance and at his six months review he had been complimented on his performance by both sales managers.

However, no procedures had been followed and the termination of his employment was unfair.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

 It had initially sought to object to the holding of a hearing but had failed to do so within the prescribed time period of twenty-one days.

Correspondence was received prior to the hearing indicating that there would be no attendance on the part of the respondent, while stressing that it did not wish to be disrespectful of the WRC.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The complainant’s case is set out above. It sets out the story of the termination of his employment after some eleven months or so.

The complainant’s direct evidence was persuasive and credible.

The respondent, while asserting that it did not wish to be disrespectful of the WRC decided it would not attend the hearing and communicated its decision on this point through the services of a large, representative employer’s organisation, well accustomed to, and skilled in the presentation of cases before the WRC.

Failure to turn up at a hearing is not just disrespectful to the WRC, as an institution in some vague or generalised way. It is more significant than that insofar as it represents a refusal to accord a complainant his right to a fair process, (having failed to object within the permitted time limits).

The complaint is referred under a statute which permits recommendations only and not legally enforceable decisions. Therefore, a respondent can snub the process knowing it is likely to have limited consequences in practice.

While the nature of any defence this respondent might have entered had it attended will never now be known, its actions and attitude to fair procedure and due process in relation to the hearing is of a piece with its attitude to the rights of its employee in its handling of the termination of the complainant’s employment in the case. It is difficult no to draw inferences from how it has handled the entire matter.

The complainant was coming up on a year’s service at which point he would in all probability have moved on to a contract of indefinite duration.

He was spoken to on August 31st, 2022, and told of the intention to terminate his employment, even though he had successfully navigated the six-month probationary period.

A meeting was arranged some days later on September 6th at which he was told, for the first time, and in the vaguest terms of an alleged difficulty in his relationships with specific sections of his co-workers. He had never been told of this before or given any opportunity to give his side of the story or make any changes that might have improved things.

He was afforded none of the basic rights required in such situations; prior notice of the nature of the meeting, including of any possible sanctions or outcome, a right to representation, a right to seek mitigation of any sanction or to appeal it.

It represents a deplorable abuse of the complainant’s rights to a fair process that, is fortunately rare enough these days, but that will be little consolation to worker involved.

Following the termination, he was unemployed for some three and a half months and he is entitled to a remedy for what I regard as a gross breach of his rights to be treated with respect and fairness and my recommendation follows.

Unfair dismissal less than one year’s service