ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00043666
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Shop Manager | A Mobile Phone and Computer Repair Shop Chain |
Representatives | N/A | N/A |
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | ADJ - 00043666 | 01/12/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Date of Hearing: 07/06/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following 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 information relevant to the dispute.
Despite having been on notice of the time and date of the hearing, the Employer did not attend and did not make any submission in advance.
Background:
The Worker commenced his employment as a Mobile Phone Shop and Computer Repair Shop Manager on 3 May 2022 and was paid €1,253 per fortnight. He stated that he was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent on 29 October 2022. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker stated that he was employed as Manager of a mobile phone and computer repair shop, which was part of a chain of 13 shops owned by the Employer. He stated that he was working on his own in the shop and did not have the support of colleagues. He further stated that he had a meeting with the Employer in September 2022 where he was told that he was doing a very good job and would receive a wage increase from €13.50 to €14.00 per hour from 3 October 2022. Despite this positive feedback, the Complainant was advised by letter from the Employer only a few weeks later that his employment was being terminated on 29 October 2022 because the shop where he was working was not meeting business expectations but gave no further reasons for the dismissal. The Worker asserted his belief that that his termination may have been due to objections he raised about being asked to fulfil duties that he believed were outside his area of responsibility, such as picking stuff up from other shops in the chain. The Worker also stated that he did not receive a reference from the Employer and has still managed to find alternative employment. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer did not attend on the day of the hearing and did not make any submission in advance. |
Conclusions:
While there may have been substantive reasons behind the Employer’s decision to dismiss the Worker, I note that these were not presented by way of evidence at the hearing. In addition, I find that the procedures adopted fell short of the standard set out in SI 146/2000. Specifically, I am not satisfied, based on the evidence presented by the Worker, that it was made clear to him that his position would be terminated at the end of his probationary period if his performance was deemed be unacceptable. Accordingly, I find that the dismissal was unfair. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Taking all of the circumstances of this case into account, I recommend in favour of the Worker and find that the Employer should pay compensation in the amount of €2,500 in respect of this dismissal.
Dated: 5th July 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|