Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sarah Murphy

Doyle's Supermarket Ltd T/A Londis

Representatives

Self-represented

Self-represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00047178-001

15/11/2021

The complainant worked for the respondent between the 3rd September 2018 and the 27th July 2021. She was paid €11 or €11.20 per hour. The complainant claims that she was unfairly dismissed, and this was not accepted by the respondent.

The respondent outlined that the complainant was very good at the start of her employment on the 3rd September 2018. There were issues with attendance and punctuality, for example for 7am starts. There were occasions she did not attend at 7am. There were other occasions that the complainant was let go home early for personal reasons, impacting the business.

The respondent outlined that they had tried to work together, and the complainant was not ‘dragged into the office’ over these issues. The respondent should have engaged proper procedures and they now held documented meetings. This did not happen in the complainant’s time.

In December 2020, the respondent had spoken to the complainant about a customer complaint. They arranged for the complainant to start at 8am, rather than 7am. The respondent stated that the table indicating the complainant’s attendance had not been shown to the complainant. It was prepared in advance of the adjudication.

The respondent stated that in July 2021, the complainant took annual leave. The respondent looked over her attendance and punctuality. It concluded that it could not sustain this type of employment. On the 27th July, the complainant asked for extra leave. The respondent informed the complainant that it was not in a position to book this time off for her and that it had decided to let her go. The meeting was about the complainant’s leave and the respondent decided that her employment should end.

In evidence, Mr Doyle said that the respondent had tried to accommodate the complainant, but this was proving difficult. The situation could not have lasted much longer.

In reply to the complainant, the respondent said that it did its best for the complainant and there was no criticism of her work.

On the 8th October 2022, the respondent emailed to say that the complainant’s hourly rate was €11. It set out the net amounts she was paid in the last ten weeks of employment, averaging €362.12.

The complainant outlined that she did not receive a contract of employment so did not have a notion of how things worked. She did not know her rights regarding breaks. She only got a 30-minute break for a 10-hour shift. She had no idea she was going to be sacked. She did not think that her conversations with the respondent constituted warnings. She had informed the respondent of health issues. She kept working when the respondent was short-staffed. She was let go following the return of the deli manager from maternity leave; they had issues previously.

In respect of attending work, the complainant said that she was only five or ten minutes late. She would text a colleague if she was going to be later. She challenged the accuracy of the table produced by the respondent at the hearing. She did not accept that she was rude to customers. She had worked despite health issues, which continued.

The complainant said that she worked 30 to 35 hours per week and was paid €11.20 per hour. She took up a role in September 2021 but was only there for three weeks. She commenced a role at a named retailer at the end of August 2022.

The complainant said that she had been a hard worker but there was no appreciation of her. This dismissal had destroyed her. What happened was not fair and she had done nothing wrong. Things should have been handled better.

The complainant worked for the respondent from the 3rd September 2018 to the 27th July 2021. She was informed that her employment was coming to an end on this date. She was paid notice pay.

The onus is on the employer to show that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Grounds can include conduct, capability or capacity. The reasonableness of the employer’s conduct and its adherence to a code of practice such as SI 146/2000 can be considered in assessing whether the employer has discharged the presumption that the dismissal was unfair.

Here, the respondent raises issues regarding the complainant’s attendance at work and certain issues with customers. The complainant did not accept that the punctuality issues were of the scale suggested by the respondent. She referred to difficulties with the deli manager. These are matters that ought to have been addressed by the application of internal procedures. If the employer had formed the view that the complainant was regularly late or had to leave early and this was impacting the business, this ought to have been substantiated by a documented investigation. Fundamentally, the complainant ought to have been able to input into any such investigation. This is a vital step if an employer is to establish substantial grounds to justify an employee’s dismissal.

In this case, the grounds relied on by the respondent to justify the dismissal were never substantiated via an investigation. They are strongly disputed by the complainant and therefore cannot dislodge the presumption that the dismissal was unfair. The complainant did not raise mere technical points, but fundamentally challenged the grounds of her dismissal. Per section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissal Act, the respondent has not dislodged the presumption that the dismissal was unfair and the complainant, therefore, succeeds.

In assessing redress, the absence of an investigation means that it is difficult for the employer to show that the employee’s financial loss should be discounted by any employee contribution to the dismissal. I fully accept the complainant’s evidence that she was a hard worker. I note the respondent’s perception that it had to deal with a number of challenges. I note that the complainant obtained a role in September 2021, but this did not work out. She obtained another retail role in mid-2022.

Taking these factors together and deciding on redress that is just and equitable, I find that the complainant is entitled to compensation of €5,000.

CA-00047178-001

I decide that the complainant was unfairly dismissed, and the respondent shall pay to the complainant just and equitable compensation of €5,000.

Unfair Dismissals Act / substantial grounds