ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ 43674

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	An Office Worker	A Construction Support Company

Representatives

Self - Represented

Did not attend

Dispute(s):

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Industrial Relations Act,1969	CA-0005412	05/12/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Date of Hearing: 21/04/2023

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.

Background:

The dispute concerns the ending of the Employment of the Worker by the Employer.

The employment began on the 3rd October 2022 and ended on the 2nd December 2022.

The rate of pay was €546 Gross for a 39-hour week.

1: Summary of Workers Case:

The Worker gave an Oral testimony supported by a booklet of documents.

The Worker made a complaint regarding her Superior, Ms M, to the MD, Mr G on the 30th of November 2022. In her supporting documents the Worker exhibited copies of e mail exchanges over Accounts queries/filing systems etc between herself and Ms M. In particular, she referred to an email she had sent to Ms M on the 30th November 2022 where she had requested that Ms M be less “patronising and condescending “. The Worker alleged that Ms M had been bullying her and treating her with no respect.

On the same day or shortly thereafter Ms M made a complaint against the Worker, to Mr G, regarding alleged performance failings of the Worker.

Mr G called a brief meeting to discuss the alleged performance failings of the Worker. This was completely unsatisfactory as her Bullying complaint was being ignored. She asked Mr G how this was happening in the light of the procedures in the Employee Handbook. Me G effectively ignored this question.

Two days later the Worker was called to a further meeting where she was summarily dismissed.

All proper Employment procedures were ignored, and the Worker was treated most unfairly. Her side of the story was not listened to by the Employer.

2: Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer did not attend despite proper notification of the date, time and place of the Hearing.

Accordingly, no evidence was presented

3: Conclusions:

This was an Unfair Dismissals case under the Industrial Relations Act,1969. The Worker did not have the 12 months service to qualify for the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977.

No explanations for the Dismissal were given and no paperwork such as a Dismissal letter, was presented in evidence. There was no Appeal offered. In general, no employment procedures of any nature were followed.

S.I 146 of 2000 – The Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures is relevant and sets out the accepted Legal/Natural Justice procedures for a Dismissal.

Good Legal precedents recognise that a Dismissal for Failure to Satisfy Probation and under 12 months employment service, while legally acceptable, ideally has to have some element of Natural Justice and Fair Procedures.

In this case no accepted or recognised Employment procedures were followed. No Employer defence or rebuttal evidence was offered.

Accordingly, a Recommendation for a limited Compensation is warranted.

4: Recommendation:

CA-0005412

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

It is Recommended that the sum of €1000 be paid as compensation to the Worker for an Unfair Dismissal.

Dated: 18/09/2023