ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference:

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	{A Chief Operations Officer}	{A Company}

Representatives

Dispute(s):

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-000xxxx

2nd Sept 2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll

Date of Hearing: 01/04/2022

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Worker was employed from 11th September 2019 until 10th August 2020.

Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker was employed as Chief Operations Officer. He was not given the bank statements for the company. There were no calls or communication after July 2020 from the Directors. Other staff calls were being answered. The Worker then made an offer to buyout the business. This was not blackmail, it was an offer to buy out over time. Subsequently he was accused of fraud for signing a direct debit mandate for computer services for the company and dismissed. This is untrue and is defamation of character. The Worker brought his innovations to the company. A contractor built the website for the company and has not been paid either. Twenty-eight days holiday pay and 1 birthday per year was agreed. He is owed holidays, commission and salary.

The Worker was dismissed on 10th August 2020 after being suspended four days earlier. He was never given the reason for his suspension or dismissal. The Worker obtained lucrative contracts for the business. The Worker was unfairly dismissed. The company was trading long before May 2020.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Respondent says the time-line to bring other claims has expired. The Director said he took over the company in May 2020. The Worker was paid to arrange the office and make concepts. He denies the Worker is owed holidays or commission. He says false figures were provided to the company, and the commission is disputed. He disputes the length of service claimed by the Worker and says the company was not trading until May 2020.

The Worker was dismissed as he was trying to force the shareholders out of the company. This was reasonable. The Worker was also threatening, and blackmailing the company. He threatened to inform a former employer of another Director. The Worker prevented the company from carrying out an investigation and was then dismissed.

Conclusions:

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

The Worker claims he was unfairly dismissed. He was dismissed on 10th August 2020. The Respondent has not adduced any evidence of an investigation or disciplinary procedure applied to the Worker’s dismissal. The Complainant was not provided with detail of the specific allegations made against him, nor did he have any opportunity to respond in advance of dismissal. There is no evidence that the Complainant prevented any investigation. This is a clear breach of SI 146 of 2000 and S6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015. The onus rests on the Respondent to justify the dismissal was fair and this burden has not been discharged.

The Worker was unfairly dismissed. I recommend payment of compensation for dismissal of €54,957.66, and 20 days holiday pay of €8,455.00 to the Worker by the Respondent.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend payment of compensation for dismissal of €54,957.66, and 20 days holiday pay of €8,455.00 to the Worker by the Respondent.

Dated: 31st January 2023