Recommendation
Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00050451
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Driver | A Delivery Company |
Representatives | Represented by a colleague | Not represented |
Dispute:
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-00058294-003 | 14/08/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Date of Hearing: 28th February 2024
Procedure:
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended), this dispute was assigned to me by the Director General. At a hearing on February 28th 2024, I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to put forward their positions in relation to the dispute.
The worker was represented by a colleague. No one attended for the employer and they were not represented. As the subject matter is a dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the hearing took place in private and the parties are not named but are referred to as “the worker” and “the employer.”
Summary of the Worker’s Case:
The employer is a van delivery business. Until June 16th 2023, they had a contract to deliver pharmaceutical products for a pharmaceutical supply chain company. Twelve drivers were employed to do this work, supported by an office administrator. One of the drivers had the role of manager. The worker commenced working for the employer on February 16th 2023. He earned €2,200 gross per month. The drivers were paid on the 16th of each month. Around 10.00am on Friday, June 16th 2023, they received a text message from the office administrator informing them that there had been a technical error in the bank and that wages would not be paid. The administrator said that it would be sorted out the following week. She said that the director was travelling home from Spain and that he would lodge money to the company’s bank account so that each employee could be paid €500 to keep them going until the bank problem was resolved. On the morning that they heard that there was a problem with their wages, the drivers exchanged phone calls and text messages and they considered stopping work. Based on the offer to pay them €500 as an interim payment, they decided to continue working. At the hearing, the worker’s colleague said that, around 4.15pm on Friday, June 16th 2023, he got a telephone call from the transport manager in the company for whom they did deliveries. The manager said their company employing them had ceased trading. He offered the 12 drivers an opportunity to start work the following Monday for another delivery company. The worker claims that he was dismissed without notice on June 16th 2023, and that his dismissal was unfair. As he has less than one year of service, he has no entitlements under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. He therefore seeks a recommendation under s.13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. |
Summary of the Employer’s Case:
No information was provided by the employer’s side at this hearing. |
Conclusions:
At the hearing, the worker said that the company that employed him has ceased trading, a circumstance that falls squarely within the definition of redundancy at s.7(2)(a) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967: …a worker who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if, for one or more reasons not related to the worker concerned, the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to— (a)…the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the worker was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the worker was so employed[.] As the worker has less than one year of service with this employer, he has no standing under the Unfair Dismissals Act and, as an alternative, he seeks compensation by way of a recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. It is apparent from the information provided at the hearing that the employer’s business ceased trading when there were no funds to pay the workers. When this became apparent to the company with whom the employer had a contract, they were taken on at short notice by another company. I accept that the employer was in financial difficulties; however, the way that the 12 drivers lost their jobs was completely disorganised, with no regard for notice or procedures. The employer’s failure to act responsibly was the cause of stress and worry for the worker and his colleagues and is not how a reasonable employer would act in the same circumstances. It is of particular concern that the worker lost his job on the day that his monthly wages were due to be paid and that his wages were not paid. For these reasons, the only conclusion I can reach is that the dismissal of the worker was unfair. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
In settlement of this dispute, I recommend that the employer pay the worker compensation of €2,030.76, equivalent to four weeks’ pay. |
Dated: 12th March, 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal |