Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Assistant

A Garage

Representatives

  Appeared in Person

 No Appearance by or on behalf of  the Employer

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking Adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR -SC-00002357

13 March 2024

On 13 March 2024, the Worker a Sales Assistant in a Service Station submitted a dispute to the WRC that he had been unfairly dismissed on 12 March 2024 from his part time position. He did not have 12 months service to ground a complaint of statutory unfair dismissal.

On 2 April 2024, the Employer was notified of the claim and did not respond. On 26 April 2024, both Parties were notified by the WRC that the case was now going forward for Adjudication.

On 31 May 2024, both parties were invited to hearing on 27 June 2024 in Cork.

On 21 June 2024 I wrote to each party separately and sought an outline submission from each party on the details of the case and any documents the parties may wish to rely on.

The Employer did not appear at hearing or forward any reason for the nonappearance.

The Worker is a college student who worked in a part time capacity during his first year in college. He worked a 10-hr week in a Service station and while he was provided with a contract of   employment, he had not been furnished with a copy. He did, however present a fine company handbook at hearing.

The Worker stated that he had received €127.00 per week and had enjoyed the job which spanned 21 November 2023 to the evening of his dismissal on 12 March 2024. He habitually worked 6-11pm.

He had picked up on some nuances of power imbalance at the business.

The Worker stated hat he had been hired on the same day of interview. He was trained but was not subjected to a probation. He worked a set roster of Tuesday and Thursday evenings after his course. He was paired with another worker, and they split the jobs evenly.

On the evening of 12 March 2024, approximately 40 mins into his evening shift, one of the two owners of the business approached the till in the company of his daughter and requested the worker to process an ESB bill through bill pay (Pay zone).

The worker was not familiar with the transaction but endeavoured to process the request. He then told the owner he was unable to process the request and that he had not been specifically trained in the transaction. The owner asked his colleague, who was unable to complete the transaction either.

The owner was angered by this and rebuffed both staff as “ridiculous customer service “as customers looked on. He reminded that he had not been trained in the transaction and that the rebuff was therefore unwarranted.

The Worker confirmed that he was agitated by the rebuff.

The Owner requested to speak to him. He advised the owner that he had not been trained in this particular transaction and he was being unfairly criticised as a result.

He got no where when he tried to discuss the matter and the owner accused him of pointing his fingers at him.

The Owner told him “You are done, get out “The Worker made the point that this was in full view of the customers and his colleague.

The Worker made no response and within 60 seconds he had picked up his bag and left the premises. He presumed that he had been fired.

There was no follow up contact from the business. A few days later a pay slip followed which incorporated holiday pay owed. He did not return to the business.

When asked the relevance of the Company handbook and in particular the grievance procedure? the worker responded that he had not utilised the grievance procedure as his problem was with the owner of the business.

He clarified that the bill did not have an urgent needing payment profile.

He confirmed that the cessation of employment had not been accompanied by a written declaration and neither party had followed up on the events of 12 March 2024.

The Worker filed his complaint to the WRC on the following day, March 13, 2024, at 10.55 hrs.

When asked what would solve this Dispute? The worker said that he had spent three weeks out of work, and he had lost the expectation of returning to work at the service station for the remainder of his course. He sought compensation and a commitment.

He clarified that he had been unable to claim job seekers due to his student status.

He had not invited to an exit interview.

There was no appearance by the Employer or Representative at hearing. I did not receive any response to my request for a statement of the Employers side.

The Employer is absent from this forum.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the Worker in the unexplained absence by the Employer in this case.

My role as an Adjudicator in this case is to explore whether a Dispute has occurred? and if so, to seek to explore what might fix it and return that to the parties as an action plan.

It is unhelpful that the Employer has ignored the invitation to participate in this process of resolution on a voluntary basis.

The WRC is a Statutory Body whose object it is to address disputes such as what has arisen here, where events complained of at work can not be solved in the workplace.

The WRC wrote to the Employer at the Business address relied on by the worker, but it has not prompted attendance.

I note on the pay slips presented that there are a variety of legal titles associated with this business.

However, as any Recommendation I may make is scripted to address a Dispute, it is not justiciable.

From my consideration of the Workers side of the story, he comes to this case as a student who sought to supplement his earnings through evening work.

He told me that he had left a 4-year background in retail to return to college and the job was important to him. This was not his first job.

I would, of course like to have heard from the employer but in his absence, I can accept that the worker did not negotiate his way through a highly conflictual situation at work on 12 March 2024.

I can accept that a fracas occurred that should have been owned and resolved by the Parties in real time.

This resulted in a very poorly managed dismissal which only manifestation is a pay slip dated 15 March 2024, comprised of holiday pay. It did not register payment for 12 March 2024.

This is radically short of best practice but also a sharp departure  from the spirit of the company handbook at section 15 ( dismissal ) .

“The handbook is designed to give clear advice to employees and to create a culture where issues are dealt with fairly and consistently “

The appended Mission Statement is underpinned by goals of dignity and respect for staff.

A major omission in this case is that this very fine company handbook was not utilised by either party.

The Labour Court has always set out that they expect an issue to be accompanied by a footprint  of at least trying to resolve a matter in the workplace.

Both Parties in this case had a public disagreement in the workplace in the presence of customers  which resulted in a job termination. This sounds more like  a bar room brawl rather than a modern and regulated workplace .

The Employer did not set out their position to the worker or the WRC. I must infer that silence is unhelpful.

The power lies with the employer in terms of managing an employment, however, I would have much preferred if the worker had set out an appeal in writing as provided for in the company handbook.

I can accept that he was overwhelmed by the power of the owner, however, I have found that his referral to the WRC within 24 hrs of the occurrence was precipitous.

I fully appreciate that there are two sides to every story, and I have only heard one side.

Nonetheless, I must conclude that the worker had a “workplace dispute “on 12 March 2024, which neither party really tried to resolve.

The worker is the minor participant in this dispute, and I can accept that he was mortified by his treatment in public by the owner of the business.

He may need to reflect on his opening “salvo “of remonstration towards his former employer.

Overall, I am struck by the inequity of approach adopted by the Employer when he terminated one employment and left the other workers employment intact, despite neither of the work colleagues being able to process the ESB bill out of hours.

I have found merit in the dispute.

Conflict in the workplace . Dismissal .