Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Coach Driver

Coach Company

Representatives

  Self

Peninsula

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

 CA xxxx

20th Dec 2021

The Employer is an Irish family-owned coach company. The Worker was employed as a coach driver from 27 September 2021 until 2 October 2021 when he was dismissed. 

The Worker submits as follows:

The Worker was employed by the Employer who terminated his employment twice in the space of two days on the 1 October 2021 and the 2 October 2021.  The Worker believes that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his disability (mental health) although he had informed the Employer of his disability before commencing employment and again before his employment was terminated.  The Worker submits that, before he commenced employment, he had informed the Operations Supervisor of the duties that would not suit him due to a requirement to attend online afternoon workshops with mental health services.

The Worker contends that he received a text at 9.13am on 1 October 2021 from the Operations Supervisor informing him that he could finish up on that date as the job did not seem to suit him.   The Worker asserts that he was shocked by the contents of the text.  He tried to call the Operations Supervisor but his phone was diverted to another Supervisor who accused the Worker of using his phone whilst driving the Employer’s coach.  The Worker submits that that Supervisor claimed that up to 8 passengers had recorded the Worker on video which the Worker maintains was not true.  The Complaint submits that when he refuted the Supervisor’s claims, the Supervisor then accused him of not turning up for his shift the previous day.  The Worker rejects this allegation and maintains that he has a tacho card which can place him in the Employer’s coach at the time of his shift.

The Worker alleges that the coach that was assigned to him had problems which made it unsafe to drive such as: the first aid kit being out of date; intermittent shaking in the steering; and, lights and wipers not working to the required standard.   The Worker raised these concerns with management as he is obliged by the Road Safety Authority (RSA) and the legislation which regulates the industry.

The Worker submits that he contacted the Owner of the employer company on the morning of the 1 October 2021 after speaking to the Operations Supervisor. The Worker explained what had happened.  The Worker submits that the Owner then contacted the Operation’s Supervisor to see what had happened that morning. After speaking to the Operations Supervisor, the Owner then called him back and reinstated his job with the promise that all the mechanical issues would be fixed.

The Worker submits that he returned to finish off his shift that afternoon and was met by a mechanic who replaced the first aid kit as it was out of date, the fire extinguisher and one bulb as he did not have a second bulb for the opposite side fog light. After a road test to investigate the coach, the mechanic deemed the steering to have issues and agreed that if the bus was to undergo a road-worthiness test (CVRT) that it would not pass.  The mechanic brought the coach to his workshop for repair.   The Worker contacted the Owner who told him to go home for the afternoon and return for his shift on the following Monday when the bus would be road worthy and ready to use. The Owner then phoned the Worker on Saturday the 2 October 2021 around 11am and terminated his employment yet again saying "it was too much grief".  Although, the Worker explained his disability on the phone call on the 1 October 2021, this did not seem to alter the Owner’s harsh treatment of him for simply trying to do his job.

The Worker submits that he had made provisions to ensure that commencing employment would not hinder his attendance at the mental health service meetings three afternoons a week. The Worker contends that this was why he choose the split shift scenario and felt that it would suit him as long as the Employer company could accommodate his needs.  The Worker submits that this had been agreed with the Operations Supervisor on 27 September 2021 before he had commenced employment and with the Owner before his job was reinstated on the 1 October 2021.

The Worker submits that he was unfairly dismissed from his job.

The Employer submits that the within claim is a duplication of CA-47763-001 and has been addressed.

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

I find that this claim is a duplicate of the claim with the reference number CA-47763-001, even though it was submitted under a different piece of legislation.  Accordingly, I find that this claim has been disposed of following my decision in CA-47763-001.

Duplicate claim