ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00033654
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A security guard | A provider of security services |
Representatives | Self-represented | Self-represented |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Dispute seeking adjudication pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00044609-001 | 14/06/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/08/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 14th June 2021, the worker submitted a dispute pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. The dispute was scheduled for adjudication on the 23rd August 2021, and this took place remotely. The worker attended the hearing and three representatives of the employer attended.
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following 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 evidence relevant to the dispute.
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker outlined that in May 2021 he had sought a pay increase and then handed in his notice on the 9th June 2021. He fell ill while working at the client site on the 11th June 2021 and arranged cover. He sought time off between the 13th and 17th June 2021, including offering to work the following Sunday shift. The worker did not accept that he had received a phone call regarding assignment to another site. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer outlined that the worker had left the client site on the 11th June 2021 without authorisation. The worker did not attend work after this date and his employment ended on the 16th June 2021. The employer outlined that it had explained to the worker in a phone call the details of the new assignment. The employer did not accept that the worker had been treated unfairly. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is a dispute pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. After having sought a pay increase to match new entrants, the worker handed in his notice. He was to move to another security role with a different security provider at a named client, with which this employer also provided services. The worker asked for his roster to be organised so that he would not be working for the employer between the 13th and 17th June 2021. He offered to work the following Sunday. The worker left his post on the 11th June 2021, but I accept that he agreed this with the local supervisor and obtained cover. It was not, therefore, an unauthorised absence. I also accept that the worker was not assigned work after this date because he was a ‘leaver’. The provision of security services is marked by transition, as staff move roles or as security providers win or lose contracts. I find that the worker was treated unfairly in the manner he was not assigned work after the 13th June 2021. I accept that there was no phone call regarding the detail of the alternative offer for assignment at this same client and this too was unfair. I recommend that the employer pay to the worker redress of €250. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00044609-001 I recommend that the employer pay to the worker redress of €250. |
Dated: 10/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act / notice period |