Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Robert  Johnston

Apple Distribution International Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

David Pearson, J W O'Donovan LLP

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-00061444-001

07/02/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and five witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation.

A remote hearing was convened for 12 June 2024.  The complainant wrote to the WRC an hour before the scheduled start time seeking a postponement of the hearing as he was too sick to attend.  As he had provided no documentation in support of his request, he was informed that he had to present himself at the hearing to seek an adjournment. 

The complainant attended the hearing but did not present as too sick to proceed.  The Adjudicator informed the complainant that a medical certificate would be required in order to adjourn the hearing on grounds of ill health.  The complainant indicated that he did not possess one. 

The complainant was instructed to obtain a medical certificate and that one was required to grant an adjournment in these circumstances.  He was provided with a short break in order to make a doctor’s appointment to obtain a medical certificate.  The complainant removed himself from the hearing and did not return when the hearing reconvened at the appointed time.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct and submitted documentation in support of its contention.

The complainant submitted that he felt that the label of ‘gross misconduct’ was excessive.  He did not attend the hearing of this matter.

A remote hearing was convened for 12 June 2024.  The complainant attended the hearing but indicated that he was too ill to proceed. He was informed that in fairness to both parties and in order to justify an adjournment, a medical certificate would be required from him.  He indicated that he did not possess one.  In the circumstances, the complainant was instructed to obtain a medical certificate and was provided with a short break in order to make a doctor’s appointment to get a medical certificate.  He was instructed to return into the hearing with an update.  The parties were moved to the waiting area for 15 minutes.

The complainant removed himself from the hearing and did not return when the hearing reconvened.  The complainant has not submitted a medical certificate nor other correspondence in the subsequent three-week period.  Accordingly, I am treating this matter as an effective non-attendance of the complainant.

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 states as follows:

6.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6(4) states as follows:

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

(b) the conduct of the employee,

(c) the redundancy of the employee, and

(d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute.

The respondent submitted that the complainant’s dismissal resulted wholly as a result of the conduct of the employee.  It provided written evidence in support of its contention to the WRC in advance of the hearing.  This documentation was copied to the complainant. 

The complainant effectively did not attend the hearing of this matter.  The employee provided no evidence, written or oral, to contradict the respondent’s assertion.  In the circumstances, I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Having regard to all the circumstances relating to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Unfair Dismissal – effective nonattendance at hearing – complainant not unfairly dismissed