Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Peninsula  

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00060146-001

21/11/2023

The Worker worked for the Employer from the 13th of February 2023 until the 15th of November 2023 when he was dismissed.

The Worker submitted a detailed complaint form and attended the hearing and made submissions.

The Employer’s representative notified the WRC that they were respectfully declining to attend the hearing.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The Worker was a field service engineer who had a role in installing and maintaining equipment on client sites. He covered most of the West and West Midlands because of where he lives. He enjoyed the job and got on well with his colleagues. In October 2023 he had passed probation and was told that he was permanent.

Without any prior notice he was called into a room with his manager on the 15th of November. He was told that he was being let go. The reason given was that the need for his work had declined and the Employer was no longer interested in maintaining someone to cover the West. This confused the Worker because they had a lot of clients in the West and those clients would continue to need to be serviced.

The Worker asked whether the Operations Director, his overall boss was attending the meeting and was told that he was not so that he could remain impartial. He was given a letter dismissing him and told he could work until the end of November or finish that day. He was told that the Employer would prefer if he finished that day.

When the Worker got home he read the letter and realised that it put forward a different reason for his dismissal, one of poor performance. In particular, the letter referred to the amount of recalls he had performed.  Many of recalls were for other technician’s work. The Worker still had access to the Employer’s systems so he sent a message to the Operations Manager outlining this and providing proof. This message was ignored.

The Worker has since discovered that another technician has been hired to replace him.

On review of the submissions I am satisfied that the Employer failed to adhere to the requirements of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures made under section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and contained in (S.I 146 of 2000).

The Worker was entitled to some fair procedure to determine these matters. I note that he had a full defence to the allegations of underperformance but the Employer would not even listen to or acknowledge his arguments.

The Worker earned €40,000 per annum working for the Employer. As a result of his termination he was unemployed and trying to find work for December, January and most of February. He has since found work.

In the circumstances I recommend that the Employer pays the Worker compensation of €10,000 for unfairly dismissing him.

I recommend that the Employer pays the Worker compensation of €10,000.