LCR22897

Complaint under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

BACKGROUND:

This dispute concerns a complaint by the Worker in relation to his treatment by the Employer. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 23 September 2023 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 December 2023.

WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:

1. On 19 September 2023, the Employer abruptly terminated the Worker’s employment without any due process. In so doing the Employer violated Section 6 of the Employment Equality Act 1998.
2. The Employer was aware that he was barred from the campus prior to offering him the contract. The letter barring him does not state that he is barred forever.
3. The Worker submitted that his contract was ended because of his race, gender and civil status.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. This issue in dispute is the early termination by the Employer of the Workers six month contract. by letter of 19 September 2023.
2. The Worker was paid one month’s remuneration in lieu of notice.
3. The employment was terminated because the Worker had been permanently barred from campus by letter of 31 May 2022 and, accordingly, could not fulfil the terms of the contract which required that he work on campus.Click or tap here to enter text.

RECOMMENDATION:

At the start of the hearing arising from the volume and type of correspondence received from both parties in advance of the hearing the Court felt it prudent to outline for the parties the nature of a hearing under s20 (1) of the Act.  In particular the fact that it was a voluntary process and that only the Worker is required to agree to be bound by the recommendation. The Court also drew the parties attention to section 8 (10) (b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and took a short break to allow the parties consider same. On resumption of the hearing the Worker confirmed that he wished to proceed with the hearing.

The Worker signed a contract for the position of UCD Post-Doctoral Research Fellow level 1 reporting to Dr Alison Connolly on the 8th September 2023. The contract was for six months. He commenced in the role on the 11th September 2023 and was dismissed by letter of 19th September 2023 with immediate effect. The Worker was paid a month’s salary in lieu of notice. The Worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed and is seeking amongst other things that he gets his job back.

 Mr Faughnan BL on behalf of the Employer stated that as set out in the letter of 19th September 2023, the Worker was barred from the UCD campus in 2022 and therefore was not in a position to fulfil his contract which required him to attend on campus. This fact only came to light after he had been offered the job and signed the contract. In an ideal world it would have been spotted beforehand, but UCD is a large employer, and the ban was issued by UCD estates and not HR. As soon as it came to light, the Employer informed him that as he could not fulfil his contract his contract was being terminated and paid him a months’ notice pay in line with contractual requirements. In the circumstances where he was banned from the campus there was nothing else they could do.

 The Worker did not dispute the fact that he was banned from the UCD campus, and confirmed to the Court that he was aware of it when he signed the contract. The Worker did not believe there was any onus on him to raise the issue with the Employer and believed that if they had not discovered it before he commenced work, then they could not rely on it to end his employment.

 The Worker believed there were other issues at play and that relying on the ban was just a smoke screen. He confirmed to the Court that the letter he received putting the ban in place did not contain any end date for the ban. The Worker confirmed that he had appealed the decision to end his contract to the President of the University but had not received a response. The Worker stated that he could still do the work without coming on campus and that he did not need regular contact with Dr Connolly. He stated that she could meet him once a month off campus.

The Court having carefully considered the submissions received, and noting that the Worker is not in a position to fulfil a requirement of his contract due to the ban on his attending at UCD campus, does not recommend concession of the Workers claim.

 The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
02 January 2024	Deputy Chairman