ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ 45136
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Supermarket |
Representatives | Gerard Lernihan |
|
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00055938 | 04/08/2021 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Date of Hearing: 20/05/22 & 05/12/2022
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.
The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The worker submits that her employment was terminated over the phone. |
Summary of Workers Case:
It was submitted that the worker worked with the employer for approximately 2 months where she was employed in the deli part of the shop working 39 hours per week and that her employment ended without notice. On 20 May 2020 the worker felt ill at work and was sent home. A short time later she received a phone call from Ms A saying, “you’re done”. The worker phoned to enquire why she had lost her job. She was invited back to work but submitted that she was never warned that absence would lead to termination. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submitted that the worker was not working at the level that he would have expected and had been spoken to about this. On 20th May 2020 she had to be sent home as she felt unwell. It was submitted that the manager phoned her at home to tell her that her job was gone because of her absence but that the employer later felt sympathy for the worker and offered her the job back, but the worker would not come back.
|
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The worker worked for just less than 2 months at the supermarket and felt ill, was sent home and was told by the employer that her job was gone. The Employer later offered her the job back. I note that the worker says that she did not know that she could lose her job for illness and that it was unfair to phone her at home to tell her the job was gone. While it would appear to me inappropriate that the employer contacted her in this manner and it would have been helpful if the worker knew the employer’s policies and procedures regarding absence; I do note that the employer sought to make amends by their efforts to reengage the worker. The worker rejected this offer. In all the circumstances and owing to the manner in which the employer terminated the employment mitigated in some part by their offering to take the worker back, I recommend an award to the worker of €250. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Key Words:
In all the circumstances and owing to the manner in which the employer terminated the employment mitigated in some part by their offering to take the worker back, I recommend an award to the worker of €250. |
Dated: 01-June-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
termination |