LCR22806

1.Complaint Under Section 20(1) Of The Industrial Relations Act

BACKGROUND:

2.The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 23 June 2023 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 August 2023




RECOMMENDATION:

The Employer informed the Court by letter, that they would not be in attendance but asked that the following be taken into consideration.

Mr Shafi was employed for 6 days from 11 April to 17 April 2023. He was previously employed with PayPal a former subsidiary of eBay and his employment came to an end in 2015. In accordance with company policy, he should not have been eligible for reemployment.

When applying for a role in eBay in 2023, the Worker misleadingly provided an alternative name on his CV and incorrectly stated on his application that he had not worked for eBay (including past subsidiaries) in the past.

In light of his misleading application eBay was not aware that Mr Shafi was an ex-employee until he was officially onboarded in April 2023. eBay issued the Worker with four weeks’ notice and gave him an opportunity to appeal the termination which he chose not to do. The Employer did not attach any supporting documentation to its letter.

The Worker in his submission to the Court denied that he had in any way tried to mislead the employer. He opened a number of documents to the Court, including a copy of his Public Service card which contains his full name and was submitted to the employer in advance of his commencing employment. He also opened to the Court a copy of his CV which clearly identified his previous employment with PayPal.

The Worker informed the Court that during his training he was invited to a team’s meeting where his employment was terminated. He was not afforded the opportunity at that meeting to set out his position nor was he informed in advance what the meeting was about.

He was afforded an opportunity to appeal the decision, but he did not believe any appeal he would lodge would be treated fairly.


Discussion
It is clear to the Court from the documents opened to the Court, that no later than the 26^thMarch 2023, the Employer and or its recruiting agent had documents showing the Worker’s full name and his CV showing his previous employment with Pay Pal. The documents provided by the Worker, screen shots of his application, submission of documents, and dates same were submitted contradicts the Employer statement that they only became aware of his previous employment and his full name when he was onboarded in April 2023.

The Court has carefully considered the written and verbal submissions it received. The Court is satisfied on the submissions before it that the Employer failed to adhere to the requirements of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures made under section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and contained in (S.I 146 of 2000), before the decision to dismiss the Claimant was taken.

This Court has consistently held that an Employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period and that the requirement of the Code of Practice applies in all circumstances in which a Worker is on hazard of having his or her employment terminated.

Having regard to all of these considerations the Court has concluded that the Worker was treated unfairly in the manner in which his employment was terminated.
The Court recommends that the Employer pay the Worker compensation in the amount of €3,000 in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
DC	______________________
22 August 2023	Deputy Chairman