Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

A service provider

Representatives

Mark Quinn SIPTU

Mairead Crosby TO ISSUE BY EMAIL TO: cases@ibec.ie

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

IR - SC - 00001494

29/06/2023

The worker commenced employment with the employer on 18 November 2022. His employment ended on 30 January 2023.  He was paid an hourly rate of €13.19 and worked on average 30 hours per week. A complaint form was received by the WRC on 29 June 2023.

The worker believes he was unfairly dismissed by his employer without recourse to fair procedure and natural justice. The complaint is being pursued under the provisions of the Industrial relations Act as the worker does not have the requisite service to pursue a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

The worker provided a written submission in which he outlined that he had commenced employment with the employer following his successful application for the role advertised by the employer.  The advertisement for the role specified that the successful candidate would be based in the employer’s offices in Ennis.

However, after receiving the proposed contract of employment it identified that the worker would be subject to working out of a split base (Ennis and Limerick).  This stipulation was placed in the contract despite the worker having been given assurances from local management that he would be based only in Ennis.  There is no agreement between the employer and SIPTU for the introduction of split bases for staff and the concept has never been the subject of discussion with the union.  On 10 January 2023, the worker wrote to the employer to advise that he would not be in a position to sign the proposed contract and set out the reasons why this was so.

The worker submits his rejection of the split base element of the proposed contract terms led the employer to write to him on 30 January 2023, terminating his employment. Following this the union wrote to the employer on two occasions seeking to discuss the matter but no response was forthcoming.

The worker asserts that the actions of the employer in terminating the workers employment falls within the category of disciplinary action, unwarranted disciplinary action.  The worker contends that it was the employer who unilaterally introduced the concept of split bases without any form of collective agreement.  The worker’s employment was terminated devoid of any vestige of fair procedure.

The worker’s short service does not negate his entitlement to fair procedures and natural justice. The worker believes a finding that he was unfairly dismissed is justified.

The employer submits that the worker commenced employment with the employer on 18 November 2022.  He was employed to work 30 hours per week and was paid €13.19 per hour.

The employer submits that the worker worked between two locations, Ennis and Limerick, predominately in Ennis. The worker refused to sign his contract of employment as he was not in agreement with the work locations, this left the employer with no option other than to terminate his contract of employment on 31 January 2023.

The employer submits that when the worker accepted the offer of employment in November 2022, it was made clear to him that although the role was predominantly based in Clare there was a requirement to be flexible in relation to other locations.

Some discussion took place between the worker and the employer vis-à-vis his place of work, but no agreement was reached.  The worker was told that unless he signed his contract it would be considered that he had resigned form his position. Some discussion did take place with SIPTU on the matter, but no resolution was found.

The employer believes it was clear that the worker was hired as part of a fair and equitable recruitment process which required him to based in dual locations. This was clear in the adverts for the role.  It was also made clear to the worker as the selection process continued.

The employer submits that they were open and transparent with the requirements of the position and the worker was not happy to accept the offer, rather he attempted to tailor it to his own requirements.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

An unfortunate set of circumstances.  There seems to have been a collision between the written contract that was offered to the worker and what he was told, or at least what he believes he was told, relating to where he would be based.

I do believe the employer could have done more to try and resolve the dispute and because of this I recommend that the employer pay the worker compensation equal to two weeks wages, that is, €791.40.