Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

 A Window Fitter

 A Company

Representatives

 Appeared In Person  

 No Appearance by or on behalf of the Employer

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-000552773-001

12 September 2022

On 12 September 2022, the Worker, a Window Fitter submitted a claim of unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. This was in respect of his having 14 weeks service, insufficient to mount a case for statutory unfair dismissal under the 1977 Act.

The case came for Remote hearing on Friday, June 23, 2023, where the Worker was the sole participant at hearing.

The hearing was held in accordance with section 31 of the Civil and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020.

The Employer, a large company did not file an objection to hearing when requested, neither did they file a defence in the claim.  The Company did not attend the hearing or provide any reason why they did not attend. I have waited the 5 working day requisite pause period before submitting this Recommendation.

The Worker provided a narrative in the case and exhibited some copies of texts. I requested sight of any documentation, which formally linked the Worker with the Company. He undertook to provide a pay slip from his employment record.

The Employer did not file a response in the case.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I requested that the Worker submit an official document which allowed me to conclude that the parties were bound in an employment relationship.

The Worker sent a pay slip dated 25 February 2022. There was a reference to an alternate named employer.

The payslip says X but it’s actually Y they use both names. (Both names on file at WRC)

The Worker outlined that he had a successful employment as a Window Fitter from 6 December 2021 to the date of his dismissal on 26 March 2022.

He gave account of his interview for the position, where his friend was already working and his being offered a full-time permanent contract of employment, which he signed, but was not permitted to retain a copy.

He described a busy working life, frequently working 6 am to 8 pm. He carried a provisional driving licence, which was an irritant for the company as his transition to full licence was held up post pandemic. The Worker said that he liked the job. He has since secured the full driving licence.

Saturday was not outlined in the contract and was voluntary and paid as overtime. He submitted that over the 14 weeks of his employment, he had worked 3 to 4 Saturdays. It was a loose arrangement.

On 23 March 2022, the Worker contacted his Line Manager, Mr A seeking the following day, Saturday off. He admitted at hearing that he did not share the real reason for such a short notice request. He said that he subsequently explained to human resources that he had a domestic problem on sudden onset homelessness and needed to move his belongings to a friend’s house.

Mr A was very aggrieved by the request and reminded the worker that there were many others, with full driving licences who could do his work.

It was the Workers case that Mr A terminated his employment by calling his attitude into focus on his not being able to work that Saturday into question.

The Worker went into work the following Monday and was prepared to work, but was stood down by Mr A when he said that “he had no work for him “

The Worker told the hearing, he sought reasons for his dismissal but did not receive any reason. He raised the matter repeatedly with Human Resources by phone and email but while he was asked whether he was prepared to work Saturdays, to which he agreed, nobody reverted with a copy of a reason for dismissal.

The Worker submitted that he was not on probation and had really enjoyed the work and salary at the business.

He submitted that he had been unfairly treated and was without work for some weeks afterwards. He submitted that his preferred outcome was a Recommendation that he get his job back at the business or compensation as a default.

He told the hearing that he had contacted the business in March of 2023 seeking re-engagement at the business, but Mr A had said that the matter was closed.

There was no appearance by the Employer at hearing. The Employer did not file a defence in the case.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered the Workers complaint form and narrative at hearing.

I am satisfied that the Employer was on notice of the Remote Hearing on 23 June 2023. I find the decision not to appear to the WRC disrespectful and unhelpful. I would have liked to have heard from the Company in this regard.

Correct Title for the Employer:

An issue has now arisen on whether the Employer is correctly named on the complaint form. The name on the complaint form does not correspond to that on the pay slip. I do not have the benefit of a contract of employment or staff handbook to consider the matter further.

As it is the sole responsibility of the Worker to cite the correct employer, in the absence of the Employer at hearing, I have no power to request consent to amend the title in an Industrial Relations case.

My Recommendation is addressed to the parties named on the complaint form.

Substantive case:

I appreciate that claims taken under the Industrial Relations Act are premised on voluntary participation. However, this is an employment that had a sudden ending and the hearing left me wanting to know more about the Employers experience with the Worker.

I listened carefully as the worker explained that he was not bound to work on Saturdays and that he needed the Saturday, 26 March 2022 off to accommodate his sudden homeless domestic situation. He freely agreed he had not given Mr A the real reason for his requested absence.

He said that he felt threatened when Mr A remonstrated with him for not having secured his full driving licence. He took exception to being reminded that others could fill his role as he contended that he had worked hard for the company, doing long hours in a job he enjoyed.

He did not expect to be fired and said that he had done all in his power to get the company to reverse that decision, before finally taking new work some 3 weeks after he finished.

The Worker’s case was that he was unfairly treated by the Employer, and he identified his preferred remedy as one of re-engagement or compensation as a default outcome.

For my part and limited by hearing from just one of the parties at hearing, I was disappointed that the worker was not in possession of his signed contract of employment. This is the legal document which bound the parties together and I believe him when he said he was refused this document both at the time of dismissal and subsequently.

I accept that the Worker was not managed out via a probation process or performance management.

Instead, I have found that based on his undisputed narrative that he was terminated from his employment without notice or an opportunity to appeal the decision.

I understand that disagreements can happen in any workplace, and I can understand that party’s expectation of the other may not be met on occasion.

However, there must be a ceremony and record around hiring and firing that is capable of scrutiny when things go right and wrong.

I accept the workers narrative that his position was terminated by the words attributed to Mr A on Friday 25 March 2022 and re-affirmed on Monday 28 March 2022. I accept that he was paid a weeks’ notice.

I also accept that he made reasonable efforts to reverse the decision over the next 5 months.

I find that the Worker ought to have spoken freely to Mr A about the exigencies of his domestic status as the reason he was unable to work Saturday 26 March 2022.

I have found merit in this dispute.

Unilateral Cessation of Employment