ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048539

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Killian Allen	Corduff Travel Corduff Travel

Representatives

Self

Mr James Hewson, B.L., instructed by Henry W Hewson, Solicitor

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00058435-001	22/08/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/06/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following 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.

The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation. The parties were also advised that it was not permissible to record or live stream the hearing and there are significant penalties if a person is found guilty of making a recording of a hearing.

The Complainant represented himself and the Respondent was represented by Mr James Hewson, B.L., instructed by Henry W Hewson, Solicitor. The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation. Two witnesses for the Respondent, Mr Michael Corduff and Ms Siobhan O’Hara also attended.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a bus driver with the respondent. He commenced employment on 04/01/2023 and left his employment on 18/8/2023. He believes that he was constructively dismissed. He was paid €900.00 gross per week. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 22/08/2023.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the complainant does not have the requisite service to fall within the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The respondent also denies that the complainant was dismissed at any stage. The complainant has not mitigated his loss.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation. In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer the complainant confirmed that he commenced employment on 04/01/2023 and this ended on 18/08/2023. The complainant stated that he understood that he was required to have six months service in order to bring a complaint under the Act. The complainant also stated that he previously worked for the respondent as a contractor.

The complainant provided post hearing documentation from Revenue which confirmed his dates of employment as being from 04/01/2023 – 18/08/2023.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Relevant Law:

Section 2 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act states that “This Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons:

(a) An employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him”

I noted the Respondent’s position that the Complainant did not have sufficient service to allow him to pursue a claim under the Act.

The following dates were relevant to that position:

· The Complainant commenced employment on the 04/01/2023

· The Complainant’s employment terminated on the 18/08/2023.

The complainant was advised that the Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to hear his complaint based on the dates provided. He was advised that that decision would be issued in writing, and he had the right to appeal that decision to the Labour Court and he would be provided with the appeal details when the written decision was issued.

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I have found that the Complainant did not have the requisite 12 months’ continuous service to pursue a claim of unfair dismissal under the Act and so it is my decision that this complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 16th July, 2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Key Words:

Unfair dismissal – requisite service.