Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

Property Maintenance Services

Representatives

  Self

David Kearney, HR Brief

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00059193

22/09/2022

The Worker was employed as a General Operative by the Employer from 15 November 2021 until 13 May 2022 when his employment was terminated by the Employer. The Worker worked a 39-hour week and was paid €14.93 per hour. 

The Worker asserts that on Friday 13 May 2022, he was told that there was no work for him that following week.  The Worker contends that he was not on notice of his dismissal.

The Employer contends that the Worker had a very poor time keeping record and that he was warned about this a number of times. 

The Employer asserts that the Worker was given every opportunity to improve his time keeping but failed to do so.  He was put on notice that if his time keeping did not improve, his employment would be terminated.  Therefore, when his time keeping did not improve, his employment was terminated.

The Employer asserts that it reserves the right to end a contract of employment during a the probationary period.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Whilst an employee with less than twelve months of service is not covered by the Unfair Dismissals Acts, the fact that they may be on probation does not negate their entitlement to fair procedures in relation to grievance and disciplinary matters.

The Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000), which promotes best practice in the conduct of grievance and disciplinary procedures, emphasises the importance of procedures to ensure fairness and natural justice. 

The Code of Practice emphasises that good practice entails a number of stages in the discipline and grievance process as follows:

·        That employee grievances are fairly examined and processed.

·        That details of any allegations or complaints are put to the employee concerned.

·        That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to respond fully to any such allegations or complaints.

·        That the employee concerned is given the opportunity to avail of the right to be represented during the procedure.

·        That the employee concerned has the right to a fair and impartial determination of the issues concerned, taking into account any representations made by, or on behalf of, the employee and any other relevant or appropriate evidence, factors, circumstances.

In reaching my conclusions in this dispute, I am mindful of the recommendation of the Labour Court in LCR22391 C&W O'Brien Architects v A Worker, wherein the Court took into account the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000) which, in the words of the Court: “emphasises the importance of ensuring that an employee is aware of any disciplinary procedure which is initiated in respect of her and to know any case being made against her and to have a fair opportunity to respond to any such case. The Code also emphasises the importance of the availability of an internal mechanism wherein a sanction which has been imposed can be appealed.”

Applying the reasoning of the Labour Court to this case, I am satisfied that the Employer’s handling of the entire matter clearly breached the Worker’s right to fair procedures and natural justice.  In deciding the appropriate level of redress, I am conscious that the Worker’s persistent lateness was the main reason for his dismissal.

I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €3,000 in compensation for his unfair dismissal.

Unfair dismissal – less than twelve months’ service