ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002865
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Optical Assistant | Optician |
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 | IR - SC - 00002865 | 17/07/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Date of Hearing: 19/11/2024
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).
As this is a trade dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the hearing took place in private, and the parties are not named. The parties are referred to as “the Worker” and “the Employer”. Section 13(9)(c) of the Act provides that hearings shall be heard in private and accordingly, I direct that any information that might identify the parties within this recommendation should not be published.
In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Worker’s complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 17/07/2024. The Employer was notified of the Worker’s complaint by letter dated 02/08/2024 and notified of their right under Section 36(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, to object to an investigation of the dispute by an Adjudication Officer within 21 days. The Employer was informed that failure to reply within the period specified will be regarded as consent to an investigation by an Adjudication Officer under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, and the dispute proceeded to hearing.
I am satisfied that no objection to the investigation of this dispute by an Adjudication Officer was received by the Workplace Relations Commission from the Employer.
The Worker attended the hearing, and he represented himself The Employer was represented by two representatives.
I explained to both parties at the outset the way the hearing would proceed, and I clarified for the parties the role of an Adjudication Officer in an Industrial Relations dispute. I clarified that it is a voluntary process and that no formal evidence is taken. In that context there are no findings of fact made. I also clarified there were no complaints under any employment rights statute or any matter of law before me in this specific referral. I explained to the parties that I would be seeking information during the hearing to gain an understanding of the full extent of the issues giving rise to these disputes.
At the end of the hearing both parties confirmed that they were satisfied that they were given an adequate opportunity to provide the hearing with all their relevant information.
I have confirmed that the Worker herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the dispute as set out in Section 13. It is noted Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendation(s) I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the position of the parties thereto.
This is an unfair dismissals dispute referred pursuant to Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 in circumstances where the Worker had less than 12 months service at time of dismissal.
No issues were raised as to my jurisdiction to hear this dispute as referred.
I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this dispute.
Background:
The Worker was employed as an optical assistant with the Employer. He commenced work on 22/01/2024. Following a meeting with senior management on 11/07/2024 the Worker considered that he was dismissed. The Employer’s position is that the Worker resigned and did not return. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker outlined that he was called to a meeting with a member of the senior management team and the store manager. At that meeting he was told that they wanted to speak to him about his attitude and a comment he allegedly made to a female colleague. At some stage during the meeting the Worker stated that he stood but was directed to sit down. Then the Worker proceeded to leave and said that the was told to go home. He understood this to mean that he was dismissed and so he collected his belongings and left. While doing so he was followed by the senior manager. The Worker believes that the senior manager was aggressive with him and when leaving he told him that he would contact a lawyer and take action. The Worker also states that the Employer is wrong to state that he verbally resigned. The senior manager asked him to apologise to his colleague or he would have to take disciplinary action. The Worker confirmed that he had no intention of apologising as he did not make the alleged comment. The Worker also disputes the Employers view that he confirmed making the comment at a meeting. There was some e mails exchanged and he did not return to work. The Worker received an email from another director which stated that “I know the team would love to have you back”. It is the Workers view that this is a most contradictory statement. If seven members of the team had issues with him he does not understand how this can now be said. Also the Worker does not understand why the Employer did not take disciplinary action against him if they believed that he was doing all the things that were alleged to have been done. It is also the Workers view that approximately half of the people who made statements about him were the same people who he alleged were involved in discriminatory treatment against him. The Worker is seeking compensation as he was not working from 11/07/2024 until 12/09/2024. He believes that the career that he was hoping to follow is damaged and he had taken up alternative employment in a different role. The Worker provided details of his current employment and earnings. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer submits that there was no dismissal. The Worker was asked to attend a meeting on 11/07/2024 in relation to a culmination of events associated with unacceptable behaviour and attitude. At this meeting the Worker was asked to go home for the day as he was clearly not in a fit state to remain in the store. The Worker is wrong when he states that he was dismissed. He left the meeting and did not return. He did not attend any meeting organised by the Employer. Various offers to speak to other people in the company were not accepted or acted on by the Worker. The Employer also asked him to retract and reconsider his decision but he insisted that he would only deal with the Employer through the WRC. It is the Employer’s position that the Workers role remained open up to 31/07/2024 but he did not resume and therefore his verbal resignation was acted on at that time. He said at the meeting on 11/07/2024 that he was quitting and he left after that and made it clear that he would not work in the place again. The Employer also refutes any suggestion that the Worker did not receive any bonus. There was no bonus paid to any staff. A previous scheme was discontinued after a trial and this was before the Worker commenced employment. There is no bonus outlined in the conditions of employment. It is the Employer’s position that there is nothing to support the view that he was dismissed. The Employer also paid him for two days as a gesture of good will and to see if he would return. When his resignation was accepted the Employer paid all outstanding money to the Worker. The Employer was always trying to do the right thing and tried to work out something with the Worker but to no avail. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Worker and the Employer were provided with the opportunity to provide information at the hearing on the manner in which events unfolded throughout this short period of employment. Both parties confirmed at close of hearing that they were satisfied they were given the opportunity to provide the hearing with all their relevant information. For the avoidance of any possible doubt the only matters before me for adjudication is a trade dispute regarding an unfair dismissal. These claims are all referred under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. There are no employment rights issues properly before me for adjudication at this hearing in relation to this dispute. On the basis that the Worker had less than 12 months service under section 2(1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, in order to avail of the protections provided by that Act, the Worker referred this dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts.
In the present dispute, the Worker has outlined details of a meeting at which he considered his employment was terminated. I note the Employer denies this allegation and submits in defence that the Worker did not respond positively to any of their attempts to resolve the dispute and while doing so they kept the Worker’s role open.
The role of an Adjudicator in relation to disputes of this nature is to make a recommendation to try and resolve the dispute. The purpose of the hearing is not to act as a substitute for a grievance hearing. Rather, the purpose of the hearing is to examine the conduct of the Employer and to determinate if the same was reasonable in the circumstances. My role as an adjudication officer is also to examine how the workplace procedures are utilised.
It is also well established that the WRC and Labour Court will not provide an audience for matters when the workplace procedures have not been fully utilised and exhausted.
Based on my careful consideration of the limited written and oral submissions, I find the Worker has failed to discharge his claim that he was dismissed. I do not find the conduct of the Employer amounted to an essential breach of the contract of employment. Having carefully reviewed all the information I cannot find the Employer acted or behaved in a manner so as to leave the Worker with confirmation that he was dismissed.
Finally, the Worker did not avail of the Employer’s grievance procedure or take up any of the Employers efforts to resolve this dispute.
Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I do not make any recommendation in favour of the Worker.
Dated: 16th December 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Dismissal. Industrial Relations Act |