ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044461
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Dhruv Kumar | Sar Group |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Dhruv Kumar | SAR Group |
Representatives | self | Geoffrey Doyle |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00055118-001 | 15/02/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/07/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. Sworn evidence was given by the Complainant and the Operations Manager.
Background:
The Complainant worked as a security guard with the Company since 13th of October 2021. On or about the 10th February 2023 the Complainant informed his supervisor that a work colleague was not able to provide adequate support to him at a hospital. In turn this was putting him under huge pressure and anxiety. He had raised this matter on several occasions. He believed that the failure of the Company to act on his complaint left his with no alternative but to leave his post and request the matter be resolved.
The Complainant alleges that he was left at home, no contact was made with him and his roster at the hospital was stopped. This meant that he had no work until he found alternative employment about 4 weeks later.
The Respondent stated that the complaint had been brought under the wrong heading.
Ignoring that fact, the Employee walked of the job. He was not laid off. The colleague who is complained about had 20 years security experience in hospitals and continues to be employed. The fact maybe that two employees did not get along; however, that is not a basis to walk off the job.
The other important fact is within a couple of days this Employee was offered another location and a new roster and failed to attend for work and stated he wanted to stay in his current location. It is a term of his contract that he can be transferred.
In the circumstances the Employer stated they were reasonable and there is no merit in the complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Employee opened text messages that show he complained about his colleague. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Employer opened text messages and emails that were shared with the Complainant that corroborate their version: · The Employee walked off the site · He refused to work with another colleague · He refused to stay at the site until another colleague would replace him · He was offered another site and roster and refused. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Employee walked off the site and he was not put on lay-off and he was not placed on a zero hours contract. On the facts the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
The Employee walked off the site and he was not put on lay-off and he was not placed on a zero hours contract. On the facts I determine that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 13-07-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Layoff |