Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

An Employer

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace

Relations Commission under Section 13 of the

Industrial Relations Act

ADJ-00049350

15/07/2023

The Complaint Form was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 15 July 2023

The Worker commenced his employment on 11 July 2022, and it was terminated on 24 February 2023.

It was the Worker’s case that as a result of mechanical faults with the truck he drove and as a result of it being off the road he had no work. It was his case that he was advised to claim social welfare payments until the truck was back on the road. The Worker did accept that he was offered work on the maintenance of the truck, but he refused this. It was his position that he was employed as a driver and not anything else. Given the truck was off the road for such an extended time he was unable to work and had no choice but to leave his employment.  He secured a position with an alternative employer in June 2023.

It was the Employer’s case that the Worker was a good worker and accepted the truck was unroadworthy from February to May 2023. However, it was the Employer’s case that they offered him alternative work in painting in cab, but this was refused. It was accepted that they did not push him to carry out his work but sought to work with him when he said he had work to do on his own house. At all times his job was open for him with the Employer stating it was a small company where employees had to be flexible in their duties. It was the Employer’s case that the parties spoke on 13 March 2023 and the Worker gave the impression he was going to seek work elsewhere. The Employer , once hearing that he had obtained alternative work provided him with a reference.

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

This is a case of miscommunication on the part of both sides. There is no dispute that the Worker drove a truck up to the point it was no longer roadworthy.

It was also agreed between the parties that the Worker only wanted to drive a truck and not carry out any other duties. However, I accept the Employer’s case that there was alternative work offered to the Worker, but this was refused. Regardless of how big or small the Employer is , it is only fair and reasonably that a Worker is flexible in undertaking alternative duties in which he is capable of.

 While I accept that the truck was off the road for a significantly longer time than expected by either party this could not have been foreseen to either party in February when the alternative work was offered to the Worker both on the phone and meeting with to the Employer onsite. It is  unreasonable for an Employee to expect the Employer to have a detailed plan of work available into the future. It is clear that the nature of the business is one which is seasonal and dependent securing new contracts. While it would have been incumbent on the Employer to keep in touch with the Worker with the alternative duties, I accept the Employer’s account that the Worker did not want to attend to any other duty other than driving. This conclusion is further based on the Worker’s acceptance that he wanted to exclusively drive a truck and nothing else. It is also accepted that the Worker sought alternative work and the decision to cease his employment was a mutual one following this development.

Consequently, I find the Worker was not wrongful dismissed by the Employer.

IR -Wrongful Dismissal