Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Nicole  Johnston

 Early Journeys Creche

Representatives

Represented by Cillian McGovern BL instructed by   Crushell & Co Solicitors

 Did not attend

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-00051548-001

05/07/2022

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 8 February 2017 as a childcare practitioner. She states that the respondent terminated her employment on 27 May 2022. The complainant asserts that she began to have issues with the respondent when she discovered that other employees, who had joined after her, were getting paid more than her. The complainant states that she also discovered that some of her colleagues were getting pay raises and she did not receive same.  In this regard, on 27 April 2021, the complainant raised a grievance with the respondent. Subsequently the complainant went on sick leave due to work related stress. A meeting took place between the complainant and the respondent on 15 May 2022. At this meeting the complainant states that she was offered redundancy but turned this down. The complainant states that she was aware of her rights and there were no other members of staff offered redundancy and a redundancy situation did not exist. 

The complainant states that on 23 March 2022 the respondent contacted the complainant and informed her she could return to work on 29 March. The complainant states that she contracted Covid and was unable to return to work until 5 April 2022. The complainant states that on 7 April, the respondent approached the complainant and stated that she had cost him a lot of money in solicitors fees. At this juncture the complainant states that she asked the respondent for a copy of details of their meeting on 16 March. The complainant states that at this point the respondent started shouting and stated to the complainant “are you threatening me”. Later that day the complainant’s father picked her up for lunch. He informed the respondent that her daughter’s work environment was significantly affecting her mental health and well-being. After the incident, the complainant states that she was extremely distressed. The complainant was certified as unfit to work by her GP due to anxiety up to 17 June 2022.

The complainant states that she received an email from the respondent on 27 May 2022 stating that her employment has been terminated with immediate effect. The complainant states that the situation has had a huge impact on both her physical and mental health. She states at this juncture she was caring for a young infant and the whole situation had caused her grave distress and anxiety.      

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

In accordance with the Unfair Dismissal’s Act, the dismissal of an employee is deemed to be unfair unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Based on the uncontested evidence provided by the complainant, I find that the complainant was dismissed with no detail of any allegations being made against her and was dismissed without any process or procedures being applied.

The complainant’s case is that her dismissal was unfair as the process that led to the decision to dismiss does not meet the standard for fair procedures set out in case law. Pursuant to the case of Samuel J Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union [1997] IEHC 137, the High Court set out a number of legal principles to be observed reinforcing the concept of procedural fairness and requiring the employer to establish that it followed a fair procedure.

Having regard to the evidence heard, I am satisfied that the respondent did not follow a fair process in the termination of the complainant’s employment. The respondent is in breach of the principles of fair procedures and natural justice as set out in Statutory Instrument 146/2000 – Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) in that;

·        The complainant was summarily dismissed on 27 May 2022

·        There were no detailed allegations provided to the complainant

·        There was no investigation carried out by the respondent

·        There were no disciplinary procedures followed and no formal appeal hearing took place

Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced in the within claim, I find that the decision to summarily dismiss the complainant was not within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer. I find that the respondent’s decision to dismiss the complainant was unreasonable and disproportionate and therefore I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.

I find the complainant’s claim of unfair dismissal to be well-founded. Having considered the remedies, I find that financial compensation is the appropriate remedy in this case. I have examined the losses sustained by the complainant. In that regard, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant financial compensation in the amount of €5500 which is just and equitable given all of the circumstances of the within unfair dismissal.

Unfair Dismissals Act