ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR-SC-00002314
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Employer |
Representatives |
|
|
Dispute(s):
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR-SC-00002314 | 4th March 2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Date of Hearing: 25/06/2024
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute(s).
Background:
The Worker was employed as a chef for four months. The Employer is a start up restaurant. The Worker was dismissed without notice on the 2nd of March 2024. He has referred a trade dispute alleging unfair dismissal. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker was three hours late to work. He called his boss at this time but was told me not to come in to work. He called into the workplace later that evening. He was greeted with a hug an told 'to leave it here' and 'you will be settled up as soon as possible'. The reason he was given for being fired is that he didn't care about the breakfast or lunch menus the Employer was rolling out. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Worker had walked off the job on a number of occasions. The Employer referred to three specific dates which he either walked out or didn’t attend work. Each day they had to close early and turn away customers. It is a new business so this was a major issue. When the Worker did not show up for a further shift they decided to dismiss him. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Employer is a start up business run by a small number of individuals who ultimately fell out with the Worker who they had been friends with. The Worker appears to accept his part in this falling out though he is clear that he was being overworked and under supported and this placed a serious strain on him. I think both parties would accept that the employment relationship was not working out. The Employer, if they had followed proper procedures, would have been entitled to pursue a dismissal. 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.” The Worker was subject to an on-the-spot dismissal and was not given any opportunity to put forward his version of events as part of a fair procedure. In circumstances I must recommend in his favour. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €1000 in compensation.
Dated: 12/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|