ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00046688

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  15/01/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The complaint is that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed without due process or substantial reason.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant gave written and oral submissions summarised as follows:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 1st of August 2013. He was summarily dismissed for alleged breach of confidentiality on the 20th of January 2023. The Complainant was called to a meeting with Mr. K of the Respondent company. No notification of any nature was given to the Complainant in relation to the purpose of the said meeting. The Complainant was not afforded any fair procedures in the context of his dismissal and was dismissed without notice. The reason for the Complainant’s dismissal, i.e. the alleged breach of confidentiality, is entirely disputed. The Complainant therefore maintains that he was dismissed unfairly.

The Complainant was not provided with a contract or an employee handbook. A complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission was lodged and thereafter acknowledged on the 12th of July 2023. The Complainant received notification on or around the 14th of December 2023 in relation to the fact that Mr. Gerard Murphy had been appointed as liquidator for redacted. The Complainant and/or the Complainant’s legal representation has now been advised that the Complainant’s claim before the Workplace Relations Commission will proceed on an undefended basis in the sense that it is understood that the company i.e. redacted, will not be represented at the hearing on Monday 15th January 2024. It is further understood that Mr. Gerard Murphy will be in attendance remotely in his capacity as Liquidator appointed.

For the avoidance of doubt, no submissions of any nature have been, or were ever received from the company in the context of the subject claim for Unfair Dismissal. In all of the circumstances, it may therefore be appropriate, at this point, to outline the Complainant’s losses. Such losses total the sum of €17,392.00. This sum is comprised of the following;

869. A) Unpaid salary due to the Complainant: €4,869.00; and
870. B) Loss of earnings: €12,523.00 (being €25,649.00 earned in 2022 vs €14,126.00 earned in 2023). Oral evidence shall be given by the Complainant in respect and in support thereof. Vouching documentation shall be submitted in respect thereof, if required by the Commission.

The Complainant gave sworn evidence summarised as follows:

He stated that he worked as a Financial Advisor for the Respondent for over 9 years.  He received payslips from the start.  The circumstances of his termination of employment was that the owner of the company Mr K called him ion 19 January 2023 to come in for a ‘catch up’ on 21st January 2023.   When they met on 21 January, Mr K was confrontational, accused the Complainant of breach of confidentiality in that he was accused of speaking to another employee about her husband’s pension.  The accusation was without foundation.  He was given no warning, no opportunity to defend his position and he was just told to close down his computer and get out.   He received no notice period and no pay for the final period of his employment.   In response to a question from the Liquidator regarding his employment status he confirmed that he was an employee.  He stated that some division of recurring unregulated income was put through under a company that Mr K insisted under which the Complainant would bill.  However, at all times he was a tax paying employee of the Respondent.  

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Liquidator for the Respondent attended the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

The uncontested evidence from the Complainant is that after nine and a half years’ service, the Complainant was called in by the Respondent and summarily dismissed without due process.   I uphold his complaint of unfair dismissal.   I find that in the circumstances, compensation is the appropriate remedy.  I note the Complainant secured work some two weeks after the termination date. Having heard the evidence on the losses, I award the Complainant the sum of €14,121 which includes the sum of €4,869 wages due to him at the time of the end of his employment.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I have decided that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and I award him the sum of €14,121 compensation.

Dated:   27th of February 2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: