ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-0049716
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Worker | Employer |
Representatives | N/A | N/A |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00061075 | 22/02/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Dates of Hearing: 01/08/2023 and 11/12/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 as amended, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the Parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
As this is a trade dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 as amended, the Hearing took place in private and the Parties are not named.
The Hearing was scheduled for 1 August 2023. The Worker was in attendance. He had brought his own interpreter for the Hearing. The Employer was not in attendance. I rescheduled the Hearing for a different date to secure the attendance of an independent interpreter appointed by the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) for the Worker.
The Hearing was rescheduled for 11 December 2023. The Worker and the WRC-appointed Interpreter were in attendance. The Employer did not attend. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Employer was on notice of the Hearing and did not seek a postponement. Moreover, I allowed a 15-minute grace period for the Employer to attend. When he did not do so, I commenced the Hearing.
Post-Hearing Correspondence:
After the Hearing and pursuant to my request, the Worker provided a copy of his “Employment Detail Summary for 2022”. A copy of the same was provided to the Employer.
Background:
On 13 June 2022, the Worker commenced work as a roofer for the Employer. The Worker earned €720 net or €914.55 gross per week, working approximately 50 hours per week. The Worker outlined that following an argument with the Employer on 13 September 2022, the Employer told the Worker to go home and the Worker’s employment ceased. The Worker outlined that he was unfairly dismissed. On 22 February 2023, the WRC received the Worker’s Complaint Form, outlining this dispute. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker outlined that he left a previous job in which he was happy, to work for the Employer, who at the time was his neighbour and friend. The Worker worked as a roofer and the Employer provided roofing services. The Worker worked on sites in Dublin City Centre and in Carrickmines, Dublin. The Worker outlined that the first 3 to 4 weeks were relatively problem-free. The Employer paid him €720 into his account and the rest was paid to him in cash. However, the Worker outlined that pay-related issues soon began to arise. The Worker outlined that on 13 September 2022, the Employer climbed up onto the roof where he was working and they had an argument. The Worker outlined that the Employer was lying to clients, telling them that jobs were completed when this was not the case. The Worker outlined that he was getting into trouble with clients as a result. The Worker outlined that they argued about this. During the same argument, the Employer criticised his work. The Worker outlined that the Employer shouted at him and told him not to return to work. The Worker outlined that he took his things and went home. The Worker outlined that he later tried to contact the Employer but he had blocked him on “WhatsApp”. The Worker outlined that the Employer had “anger issues”. The Worker outlined that he was stressed by the situation. He outlined that he received money from his father to pay his rent. He outlined that he was homeless for a period. The Worker outlined that approximately six weeks later, he commenced working for his previous employer. The Worker outlined that he later became self-employed. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer did not attend. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me.
The Employer must demonstrate that a dismissal was: (1) substantially fair; and (2) procedurally fair. The Labour Court emphasised the importance of fair procedures in Beechside Company Limited t/a Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker, LCR21798, noting: “… it is imperative that an employer in a dismissal case must not only show that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal but also that fair and proper procedures were followed before the dismissal takes place. This requirement of procedural fairness is rooted in the common law concept of natural justice.”
On the basis of the uncontested evidence, it appears that the Worker was dismissed on 13 September 2022 with immediate effect. The dismissal appeared to be substantially and procedurally unfair. In the circumstances, I find in favour of the Worker and I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €3,658.20 in compensation, which is approximately four weeks’ pay. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the dismissal was unfair. I find in favour of the Worker and I recommend that the Employer pays the Worker €3,658.20 in compensation.
This recommendation is based on the unique circumstances of this dispute and should not be invoked or relied upon in any other forum.
Dated: 26th January 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act, section 13, Unfair Dismissal. |