Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

A Transport Company

Representatives

 Not represented

Did not attend the hearing

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00059516-001

20/10/2023

The employer runs a transport business which is contracted to a multinational logistics company.  The worker is a driver and he was employed to drive one of about 20 vans operated by the employer.  He said that he started working with this employer in February 2023.  He worked out of a warehouse near Dublin airport where parcels are dropped after arriving in Dublin by air. 

On Friday, October 13th 2023, the worker said that he worked his regular shift, delivering what he thought was his normal assignment of bulk deliveries which he picked up from the warehouse.  He said that he was made aware that there were extra parcels in the warehouse for delivery on his route, which he hadn’t picked up.  He said that his manager didn’t tell him that there were extra parcels for delivery.

The following Monday, October 16th, the worker said that his manager sent him a message at 6.38am, instructing him to take the day off because a plane hadn’t arrived in Dublin with product for delivery.  Later that morning, he said that his manager arrived at his home and instructed him to remove his personal property from the van, saying that he needed it until Wednesday and that he was to come back to work on Wednesday.  The worker said that he thought that this was a bit unusual, but he handed over the keys and took his equipment from the van.  Shortly afterwards, the worker said that his manager removed him from the work WhatsApp group.  From this, he concluded that he was dismissed.

From the time that he started in this job, the worker said that he never received any payslips.  He said that wages were often paid late, and, when he went on holidays, he didn’t get his holiday pay until two months later.  At 7.30pm on Monday, October 16th, the same day that the van was collected from his home, he sent his manager a text message asking him if he could get him his payslips “if the job is gone.”  He produced a copy of the text message at the hearing in which his manager replied, “ye will do.”  The following day, the worker sent his manager another message asking for €120 for toll charges that he had paid when he was driving for the employer.  The next day, Wednesday, October 19th, at 6.25am, he sent another message, asking what was happening with the job and repeating his request for payslips and toll money.  The manager replied to the effect that he would let the worker know as soon as he knew himself.

The information provided by the worker at the hearing of this dispute may be summarised as follows:

§  He had some grievances with his employer regarding the late payment of holiday pay and the failure to issue payslips.

§  He didn’t pick up parcels for delivery on Friday, October 13th 2023, and left them behind in the warehouse.

§  The following Monday, his work van was taken away and he was removed from the work messaging system, which was used to inform employees about schedules and deliveries.

§  When he sent his manager a message letting him know that he though his “job is gone,” the manager did not contradict him.

§  When he didn’t turn up for work after Monday, October 16th, his manager didn’t contact him to find out where he was.

From this information, the only conclusion I can arrive at is that the worker was dismissed.  Clearly, no procedures were followed, and he got no warnings and no notice.

I accept that, in general, a dispute being considered under the Industrial Relations Act is a less formal matter than a hearing under the Unfair Dismissals Act; however, I am guided by the decision of the Labour Court in the case of Beechside Company Limited, trading as the Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker, LCR 21798.  It is clear from this decision that the requirement for fair procedures is not confined to employees who have adequate service to benefit from the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act, and the Labour Court has consistently determined that employees with short service come within the protection of Statutory Instrument 146 of 2000, the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

Before he was dismissed, the employee should have been informed of what it was that was causing issues for his manager to the point where a decision was made not give him any more work.  As he had short service, it would not have been appropriate to go through each stage of a disciplinary process; however, he should have been given an opportunity to address the issues that were causing concern.  If someone had explained to him what was required to ensure that he remained in the job in the longer term, he may have adapted and reached the standard of performance that was required to remain in the job in the long term.  Because of the failure of the employer to engage in any procedures, I find that the dismissal of this employee was unfair.

At the hearing of this dispute, the worker said that the job he had with this employer was very important to him.  He has a young family and he said that he was well paid.  On the date of the hearing, he was unemployed.  Having considered all the information submitted to me by the worker, I recommend that the employer offer him an opportunity to return to his job.  To give him time to support his partner after the birth of their baby, I recommend that the employer re-engage the worker in his former job from Monday, April 7th 2024.

Unfair dismissal, procedures, notice