Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Building Company

Representatives

Unrepresented 

 Unrepresented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00051302-001

24/06/2022

The worker commenced employment on 24th January 2022. He worked 8am to 5.30pm from the commencement of his employment up to 13th June 2022 when he was requested to do night work. The worker informed his supervisor that he could not do night work due to family reasons. He was requested to attend a meeting on 14th June 2022, and he was dismissed due to his unavailability to do night work.

The worker stated that he had worked daytime hours from the commencement of his employment and that he was not in a position to work night shifts. He said that his employer was aware that his wife was pregnant and that this was one of the reasons why he could not do night work. He was disappointed at the way he was treated by his employer and particularly because all his colleagues were aware of the reason for his sudden dismissal.

The employer did not make any submission to the Workplace Relations Commission and did not attend the hearing. After the complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission, the employer did not object to the dispute going forward to adjudication. I am satisfied that the employer received notification of the date, time, and venue of the hearing.

The worker produced emails at the hearing which confirmed that he was requested to do night work on Friday 10th June 2022. He informed his employer on Monday 13th of the reasons why he could not work nights. He was requested to attend a meeting the next day where he was informed that he was dismissed.

In the absence of a company’s own grievance/disciplinary procedures, the Workplace Relations Commission has a default code of practice as established by Statutory Instrument (SI 146/2000). In this case, there were no procedures adhered to by his employer and the worker was not afforded due process. The issue of night work arose over two working days and on the third day the worker was dismissed. There was an absence of disciplinary procedures and no option for the worker to raise a grievance. These basic workplace procedures are in place to protect both parties and to ensure due process is afforded to both parties. Even though the worker was in his first year of employment, he worked normal daily hours for nearly six months. He had established daytime working hours through custom and practice as he had not worked any other pattern of hours. He was entitled to proper consultation on the proposal to work night-time hours. After working for nearly six months with the employer, he was entitled to be treated fairly and in accordance with procedures. In this case, the worker was dismissed very suddenly and publicly in that his colleagues were fully aware of his dismissal for not agreeing to do night work.

Due to the lack of due process afforded to the worker, I recommend that the employer should pay the worker €2,000 compensation.

I recommend that the employer pay €2,000 to the worker due to the lack of due process afforded to him.

Due Process, Change of Terms of Employment