ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032036
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A software developer | A Multinational Company |
Representatives | Complainant | Colin Gannon |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00042184-001 | 27/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00042184-004 | 27/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00042184-006 | 27/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00042184-009 | 27/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 67(5) of the Property Services (Regulation) Act 2011 | CA-00042184-010 | 27/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00042184-011 | 27/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00042184-012 | 27/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00042184-013 | 27/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/11/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints
Background:
The complainant has made a wide variety of complaints against the respondent employer. During the hearing evidence was submitted by the respondent that the complainant had been diagnosed as suffering from mental health issues. I have therefore decided not to name the parties. The complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath/affirmation. Evidence was also given under oath/affirmation by the HR Manager. This evidence was subject to cross examination. Submissions were received from both parties and considered by me.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined a wide variety of complaints concerning various bodies including alleged abuse he was subjected to by both national and international bodies. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant submitted complaints under multiple headings. In his complaint form, the Complainant introduced many hundreds of pages of material of a quite incomprehensible and disturbing kind. This material mirrors in many respects certain documents circulated by the Complainant during the course of his employment with the Respondent. As appears from a review of the material submitted by the Complainant, it contains a wide range of sweeping and quite troubling statements regarding the Complainant’s perceived persecution by third parties. The material provided by the Complainant is of no relevance to the statutory claims issued by him. It is submitted by the Respondent that, in respect of each of the Complainant’s claims, he has failed to set out any facts whatsoever from which a finding of wrongdoing may be made against the Respondent. In relation to the claim of unfair dismissal, the Respondent denies the Complainant’s claim under the UDA and asserts that there were substantial grounds justifying the termination of the Complainant’s contract of employment. Furthermore, the dismissal of the Complainant was not unfair as it resulted wholly or mainly from the conduct of the Complainant. It is submitted that the dismissal was reasonable in all of the circumstances. It is submitted that, despite the persistent efforts of the Respondent to encourage the Complainant to seek the assistance necessary for him to address and/or overcome the difficulties he was encountering, the Complainant refused to take any steps to address those issues. Despite requests, the Complainant refused to accept medical advice; he refused to participate in any further medical assessments and refused to attend disciplinary meetings on 25 and 30 November 2020, despite having been informed of his obligation to do so. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In light of the evidence submitted at the hearing relating to the mental health of the complainant, I have determined that neither party should be named in this finding. The complainant made extensive submissions regarding perceived misconduct by a wide variety of parties. However, no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the respondent was put forward. CA-00042184-001 Equal Status In his evidence the complainant acknowledged that he did not send the ES1 form to the respondent. A claim cannot be taken under the Equal Status Acts to the WRC unless a letter is first sent to the respondent telling them you are thinking of making a claim. This is called “notification”. By law the letter of notification must ; be received by the respondent not later than 2 months after the event giving rise to the complaint; explain what the complaint is about; give the respondent a chance to reply to explain their position and; notify the respondent that if unhappy with their reply a case may be taken. This notification is a legal requirement, and the WRC cannot deal with a complaint if this is not done. As this requirement was not met, I conclude that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. CA-00042184-004 Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 Having considered the evidence put before me I am satisfied that by the respondent made all reasonable efforts to deal with the issues confronting them and the eventual decision to dismiss the complainant was within the “band of reasonable responses” to the circumstances. The complainant was afforded due process in accordance with the principle so natural justice and therefore I conclude that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. CA-00042184-006 Employment Equality The evidence of the complainant related only to his belief that he was inadequately paid compared to what he had received in previous employments. I therefore conclude that the complainant was not discriminated against. CA-00042184-009 Fixed Term Work The complainant acknowledged in evidence that he was on a contract of indefinite duration and therefore the Protection of Employment (Fixed Term Work) does not apply to him. I therefore conclude that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00042184-010 Property Services Regulations No evidence was adduced in support of this complaint and I therefore conclude that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00042184-011 Redundancy No evidence was put forward that the complainant’s position was made redundant. He was dismissed. I therefore disallow the appeal. CA-00042184-012 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act The respondent gave evidence of a final payment made to the complainant in respect of the notice due. I therefore conclude that the Act was not contravened. CA-00042184-013 Transfer of Undertakings. No evidence was given by the complainant in relation to transfer of undertakings other than to say he believed that his data may not have been properly transferred. The complaint is not upheld. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
CA-00042184-001 Equal Status The respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. CA-00042184-004 Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 The complainant was not unfairly dismissed. CA-00042184-006 Employment Equality The complainant was not discriminated against. CA-00042184-009 Fixed Term Work The complaint is not well founded CA-00042184-010 Property Services Regulations The complaint is not well founded CA-00042184-011 Redundancy I disallow the appeal. CA-00042184-012 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act The Act was not contravened CA-00042184-013 Transfer of Undertakings. The complaint is not upheld. |
Dated: 20/02/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Key Words:
Equal Status notification, Unfair Dismissal, TUPE, Minimum Notice, Employment Equality, Fixed term work. |