LCR22733

1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s)ADJ-00035372 CA-00038590-001

BACKGROUND:

2.The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 5 August 2022 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. On 8 December 2021 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:
“I do not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.’
Labour Court hearing took place on 21 March 2023.

DECISION:

Background

This is an appeal by the Worker of an Adjudication Officer’s decision. The Adjudication Officer did not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.

The Worker’s representative submissions covered all his complaints under various pieces of legislation without defining the specific issues or sections of the acts being relied on or the section of the submission that were relevant to a particular complaint. At the commencement of the hearing the Court sought clarification in respect of each of the specific complaints. In respect of this complaint the Court was advised that the issue was that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed on the 12^thFebruary 2020. This case is linked to cases ECD/22/1, HSC/22/10 FTC/22/29 and CD/22/160. Cases UD/22/98 and ECP/22/1 were withdrawn in the course of the hearing.

Summary of Worker’s submission

The Worker’s representative submitted that he had commenced work with this Employer on 26^thAugust 2019 on a 14-month fixed term contract. This included a six-month probationary period which the Worker successfully completed in October 2019. The Worker raised some concerns he had in December 2019 with the CEO, and he believes that things changed in the workplace after that for him. He does not accept that he was made redundant or that the Employer had lost work and needed to let some staff go. It was his representative’s submission that the Worker was not made redundant but was in fact dismissed on the 12^thFebruary 2020.

The Worker was seeking recurrence training in order to keep his licence legal for Visual Flying Rules and other regulations. When he sought this training, he received a response from the CEO advising that “Given the present circumstances (pertaining since December) I release you from your commitment to West air”. This email was dated 12^thFebruary 2020 and he took this to mean he was dismissed. His representative submitted that the Worker was speaking to the CEO the next day and was begging for his job back.

It is her submission that he was paid three months’ notice as provided for in his contract which covered him up to the 13^thMay 2020 and he did not have to work his notice. Then for some unknown reason on the 9^thApril 2020 he received an email from the CEO asking him if he wished to put forward ideas on what the Employer should do in light of the fact that it had to make some staff redundant. The Worker found this very upsetting as he believed that he had been dismissed on the 12^thFebruary 2020. The Worker does not accept that he was made redundant and submitted that it is clear that he was dismissed on the 12^thFebruary 2020. It is the Worker’s position that he was dismissed and given three months paid notice from the 12^thFebruary 2020. His representative submitted to the Court that because the Employer had decided to call it redundancy, they were obliged to give the Worker two months Redundancy notice.

Summary of Employer’s submission

The Employer submitted that the Worker’s contract was terminated by reason of the dire situation facing the company in the lead up to COVID when they had lost a major contract and an aircraft. The impact of this was that they did not have sufficient work for all their pilots. From December 2019 although the Worker continued to be paid there was no work for him. These issues were compounded by the arrival of COVID. Due to the Complainant’s short service, he did not qualify for statutory redundancy, but the Employer complied with all his legal and contractual entitlements. All costs reduction measures were considered before the decision to make the Worker redundant was taken. Following consultation and engagement two pilots were let go. Mr Dutton being one was made redundant with effect from the 29^thApril 2020 and was paid three months pay in lieu of notice in accordance with his contractual entitlements. The email of the 12th February 2020 referred to by the Worker was in reference to his Training bond which he had signed on the 9^thJuly 2019 and which required payment by the Worker of €10,000 should he terminate his contract in advance of its end date. However, in circumstances where the Employer did not have work available for the Worker, they were prepared to release him from that bond. The Company continued to pay the Worker his monthly salary in February, March and April and he therefore could not be under any illusion that he had been dismissed in February. In April when he was made redundant, he received three months’ salary in lieu of notice.

Discussion and Decision

The Worker’s representative accepted that he had been paid his monthly salary in February , March and April and that he had also received a lump sum in April but still maintained that he had been dismissed by email of the 12^thFebruary 2019. The Court having read and listened carefully to the submissions of the parties finds that information provided to the Court by both parties does not support the contention that he was dismissed on the 12^thFebruary 2019 and therefore his complaint must fail.

The appeal fails. The Decision of the Adjudication officer is upheld.

The Court so Decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
DC	______________________
19 April 2023	Deputy Chairman