Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Associate

A Luxury Retail Outlet

Representatives

  Self

Mason Hayes & Curran

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00055111-002

05/02/2023

The worker commenced employment with the employer on 27 June 2022 and worked in a part-time capacity earning €12,000 per annum. The worker alleges that she was dismissed without warning and without explanation on 20 January 2023. The employer submits that the worker was dismissed in accordance with the contract of employment.

The worker described attending for work as rostered on 20 January 2023. On her arrival she was met by the store manager and handed a brown envelope in front of other staff. The worker’s manager stated that the worker was being dismissed with immediate effect. The worker asked why she was being dismissed to which her manager responded that she could not discuss it and that the letter explained everything. The manager asked the worker for her keys, and watched while the worker emptied her locker. The worker was then told she could leave by the back exit. The worker stated that she was ushered out as if she had done something wrong. The worker exited the shop and opened the letter. The letter was unsigned and did not give any reason for the dismissal. The letter also stated: ‘following our meeting’. The worker outlined that there had been no meeting.

The worker stated that she wrote to HR on 20 January 2023 seeking an explanation for her dismissal. HR responded to confirm the contents of the letter and the legal right of the employer to end the employment relationship in accordance with the contract of employment.

The worker outlined that she did nothing wrong and always worked to the best of her ability. She was a trusted member of the team; she had been given responsibility quickly; she became a keyholder within months; she was trusted handling money in the safe and tills; she opened and closed the store; and sent end of day reports. The worker received numerous compliments on her performance from various managers. The worker described working extra shifts when the store was short staffed.

The worker was in complete shock that she was dismissed. The worker outlined that she had completed her probationary period and that at no time had she received negative feedback concerning her performance, attendance or conduct and no verbal or written warnings. The worker stated that the manner of her dismissal was humiliating.

The worker stated that she wanted to know why she was dismissed. The worker explained to the hearing that there was now a gap in her curriculum vitae that she could not explain to a prospective employer and that her dismissal impacted her reputation. Further, she could not name the employer as a referee as she had no idea what they would say to a prospective employer if the latter asked why the worker left the employer’s employment.

The worker concluded by saying she loved her job and the hours fitted well with her responsibilities outside of work. The worker stated that she was finding it very difficult to find a similar job offering the hours and flexibility she enjoyed with the employer.

The employer outlined that it did not intend to say much in response to the worker’s dispute, other than it used its contractual right to terminate the worker’s employment. The worker was paid in lieu of notice in accordance with the contract of employment as was the employer’s legal right to do and that the employer had nothing further to add in relation to the dispute. The employer submitted that its attendance at the hearing was done as a mark of respect to the WRC and that it did not agree to be bound by any recommendation in respect of this dispute.  

I asked the employer to comment on the provisions of s 14 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, to which the employer stated that there is an Associate Handbook which contains policies and procedures. The employer confirmed to me that there is no provision in the contract of employment in relation to no fault dismissal. I asked the employer if they had any comment in relation to SI 146/2000, to which the employer stated they had nothing to say in relation to same. The employer confirmed to me that the policy of the employer is to issue a statement of employment only on termination of employment. The employer confirmed to me that it would not be giving a reason for the dismissal at the hearing.

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

The employer outlined at the outset of the hearing that it did not intend to engage in a substantive way at the hearing in relation to this dispute. Accordingly, I accept the undisputed facts as presented by the worker as follows:

On 20 January 2023 on her arrival to work, the worker was handed a letter which stated that she was being dismissed in accordance with the ‘Termination and Notice Period’ clause in her contract of employment, which read: “[a]fter successful completion of your probationary period  . . . the prior written notice required from you or the Employer to terminate your employment shall be one month . . . .”. The manager gave no explanation to the worker for the dismissal at the time she handed the letter to the worker, and no reason for the dismissal was detailed within the letter. Nor was a reason furnished to the worker despite her written request to HR for same. The worker was at a loss as to why she was dismissed, and dismissed in the manner which she described at the hearing, given that she was doing the job to the best of her ability; no concerns had been brought to her attention; and no warnings had been issued to her.

The reason for the worker’s dismissal was not forthcoming at the hearing either. Section 14(1) of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 provides:

“An employer shall, not later than 28 days after he enters into a contract of employment with an employee, give to the employee a notice in writing setting out the procedure which the employer will observe before and for the purpose of dismissing the employee”.

A copy of the above procedure was not furnished to the hearing by either party to the dispute. Accordingly, I do not know what procedure the employer committed to observing before and for the purposes of dismissing the worker. It is clear however, that the worker was dismissed without any recourse to fair procedure or any procedure at all. The employer failed to comply with the minimal requirements set out in S.I. No. 146/2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures in coming to the decision to dismiss the worker in this case. The Labour Court has “. . . consistently upheld the rights of all workers to fair and proper procedures, in the absence of which dismissals usually must be deemed to be unfair” (LCR26688).

I agree with the worker that the manner of her dismissal was humiliating which I find was further compounded by the ongoing refusal by the employer to give a reason for the dismissal. As noted by the Labour Court in Hamilton Insurance Dac and A Worker (LCR22710), whenever a worker is at risk of the loss of his or her job, it is incumbent on the employer to make the worker aware of the situation and of the reasons.

I accept the worker’s submission regarding the impact of the dismissal on her ability to earn and the impact it has and may continue to have on the worker in securing future employment. I further accept that the sudden termination of her employment without warning and the way it was carried out, which was utterly devoid of fair procedure, has had a significant effect upon the worker. I note that as the time of her dismissal, the worker was earning €12,000 per annum and had regular over-time earnings.

In all the circumstances of this dispute, I conclude that the decision to dismiss the worker was unfair and unreasonable.

I recommend that the employer pay the worker compensation of €6,000 in full and final settlement of this trade dispute. I further recommend that this compensation is paid to the worker by the employer within 14 working days of this recommendation.

Dismissal outside of probation. No warnings. No reason given for dismissal. Non-adherence to fair procedure.