Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Self-represented

IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00065110

15/02/2024

The worker was employed on a casual contract from 2nd March 2023 to 5th November 2023. The contract stipulated 23 day’s work per year with possible additional days. Although the worker could decline work, he always made himself available when requested to work.

A dispute arose in September 2023, when it was proposed to re-assign him from his usual role. This resulted in an exchange of text messages between the worker and his supervisor. It was the worker’s understanding from the text messages that he was dismissed. However, he was offered other work shortly afterwards which he declined as he considered himself dismissed at that stage.

The employer’s position is that he was offered other work after the dispute with his supervisor. Therefore, he could not have been dismissed. The employer outlined that his employment ended as per the end date on the contract which was 5th November 2023.

The worker outlined that due to the re-assignment from his usual role and subsequent text messages with his supervisor, that he was dismissed. He felt he could not return to the workplace even though he accepted that he was offered work shortly afterwards.

The employer representative outlined the nature of the work and the reason for casual employment contracts. He said the re-assignment was in accordance with the contract as roles were interchangeable. There was an acceptance that the text communications between the supervisor and worker which caused the dispute could have been managed better. Despite this, the worker was later offered work which he refused. The representative stated as the contract had an end date, that this was how the employment relationship ended.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions, the exchange of text messages, and the nature of the casual employment relationship.

It is evidence from the text messages that the normal employment relationship of mutual trust had broken down.

In workplaces, disputes often arise. Things are said or done in the heat of the moment. They are often resolved when tempers have cooled. There is substantial case law on the circumstances under which a dismissal has taken place. The conduct and actions immediately after an alleged dismissal can be critical to determine whether a dismissal has indeed taken place.

In this case, the dispute was through text message. It is regrettable that no direct meeting took place afterwards to resolve or clarify matters. Due to the text messages, the onus was on the employer to clarify the employment relationship going forward. The worker also had a duty to use the grievance procedure to formally object to his new assignment. Subsequently, and arising from the text messages, he could have sought to clarify his employment status, particularly when he was offered further work.

Unfortunately, no formal process was initiated by the supervisor or worker after their dispute. This may have been due to the casual employment relationship and/or a lack of familiarity with workplace procedures.

In deciding on an appropriate recommendation, I have taken on board the casual employment relationship, lack of any formal process, and resulting consequences for the worker. Although he took no active steps after receiving the text messages, it is possible that he could have considered himself as dismissed.

Even though the employment contract is now well expired, he incurred a loss of earnings at the time as under normal circumstances, he always accepted work when offered.

On a review of the contract and his potential loss, I estimate the loss of earnings as €2,000.

I recommend that the employer pay €2,000 to the worker for loss of earnings, in full and final settlement of the dispute.

Unfair Dismissal, Industrial Relations