Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Edward McCartney

Onnec Ltd

Representatives

Self-represented 

Did not attend and was not represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00054748-001

29/01/2023

Before giving evidence, the complainant affirmed his intention to tell the truth.  The documents he submitted in advance of the hearing were in jpg format and were not readable on the WRC’s system and he sent them in a readable format two days after the hearing on June 11th. 

On the form he submitted to the WRC, the complainant said that he commenced work with the respondent on December 6th 2021.  He claims that he received notice of dismissal on November 28th 2022.  At the hearing, he said that he was paid in lieu of a week’s notice and that his employment ended on December 5th.  He claims therefore, that he has exactly one year of service, which is the requisite length of service to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Under the heading, “Start Date of Employment,” the copy of the contract of employment that the complainant sent to the WRC states, “You will commence employment on December 2021,” and the exact start date is not shown.

On his complaint form, the complainant said that he worked 39 hours a week and that his weekly pay was €669.63 gross.  The copy of the contract he sent after the hearing shows that he was paid an hourly rate of €13.09, which is equivalent to €510.51 gross per week.

The complainant said that he commenced employment as a trainee cabling technician with the respondent’s company on December 6th 2021.  Although his job title referred to him as a trainee, he said that he wasn’t a trainee and that his job was to install copper and fibreoptic cables on clients’ premises.  After the hearing, he produced copies of certificates showing that he was qualified to work on copper and fibreoptic cabling.

The complainant used his private car to travel to the premises of the company’s clients and he carried the equipment that he needed in his car.  The main piece of equipment was a splicer, which is used to join cables.  He said that this was around the size of a small toolbox.

Around the end of October 2022, the complainant said that he asked for a meeting with the contracts director and the HR manager about using his car to carry equipment.  A copy of an email from the HR manager to the complainant on October 18th shows that the meeting took place on that day.  The complainant said that he wasn’t insured to drive for his employer or to transport equipment and that a colleague had the use of a company van.  At the meeting, the complainant said that it was agreed that he would leave the equipment in the job premises and, from then on, it would be delivered to whatever site he was working on each day.  Sometimes, it could be left overnight on a client’s site.  In the email of October 18th, the HR manager said, “We propose to reconvene on Thursday, 17th November at 3.30pm to discuss how this arrangement is working.”

The complainant said that he forgot that about the meeting on November 17th.  It appears that another meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 23rd because the HR manager wrote to him just before 4.00pm on that day and stated as follows:

“We had expected you for a meeting this afternoon and Aidan also tried to give you a call but unfortunately couldn’t get through to you.

As you may be aware withing the company there is a downturn in work and consequently we have to consider making a reduction to our workforce in order to approach the future with economic viability.  It is unlikely that we will be able to sustain the same level of staff and therefore it is unfortunately necessary for us to meet with you to discuss future employment.  Please find attached a letter inviting you to a redundancy meeting on Friday, 25th November.

Please confirm by email that you are attending this meeting and if you are bringing a work colleague or a trade union representative.

To allow you time to prepare for this meeting, we will not expect you to be onsite tomorrow or Friday.”

The complainant said that he attended the meeting with the contracts director and the HR manager on Friday, November 25th and he was informed that his job was redundant because there’s wasn’t enough fibreoptic work available.  The complainant said that making him redundant didn’t make sense because he could also do copper cabling.  He said that he received notice of the termination of his employment on Monday, November 28th and he was paid in lieu of one week’s notice.  He said that he thinks he was the only person made redundant that it was related to his decision not to carry equipment in his car.

On the form he sent to the WRC, the complainant said that he commenced in a new job on January 16th 2023.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

I have considered the complainant’s evidence and the documents he sent to me after the hearing.  He neglected to provide any firm evidence of the date of his dismissal, although from the correspondence that he submitted, I see no reason why he was not provided with a letter of dismissal.  From the information he provided, it is apparent that he commenced employment with the respondent on Monday, December 6th 2021.  In October 2022, he raised a grievance about the use of his car to carry company equipment. 

The complainant didn’t attend a scheduled meeting with the HR manager on Thursday, November 17th and he said that he forgot to go to a re-arranged meeting the following Wednesday, November 23rd.  He attended a meeting Friday, November 25th, which, he was informed, was to discuss the redundancy of his job.  In several emails that he sent to prospective employers on November 25th, he said, “I recently have been made redundant.”  It is my view that the complainant was dismissed at the meeting on November 25th and I do not accept his claim that he was dismissed the following Monday, November 28th. 

The complainant was entitled to one week’s notice of the termination of his employment.  He said that he was paid in lieu of notice, which is in accordance with a provision in his contract.  Taking all these facts into account, I am satisfied that the complainant commenced employment with the respondent on December 6th 2021 and that his employment ended when his notice, if he had worked his notice, would have expired on December 2nd 2022.

Section 2(1(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides that the Act will not apply to

(a) an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him[.]

Section 4 of the Act refers to dismissals during apprenticeships and is not relevant to this complaint.  As section 2(1)(a) is clear that the provisions of the Act do not apply to an employee with less than one year’s continuous service, I find that the complainant is just short of the requisite one year of service required to bring a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

I have concluded that the complainant does not have one year of service with the respondent to bring a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act.  I find therefore that I have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on his complaint.

Less than one year of service