ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference ADJ-00051586:
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Yard Transport Operative | A construction equipment supplier |
Representatives | Self-represented | Terry Gorry Solicitor |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Industrial Relations Act 1969 | CA- | 31/10/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Date of Hearing:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Worker contends that he was unfairly dismissed when he was called into the office on 4th August 2023 and told things were ‘not working out’.
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker stated that he worked for the Respondent from 5th December 2022 until 4th August 2023 when he was suddenly fired without notice or explanation except to say that things were not working out and he was being let go. He was never told there was any problem with his work. He did receive a phone call from a friend telling him that the Manager Mr D was going to get rid of him. He had worked hard, had sometimes been there until 9.30pm, had been given more than one job to do and had tried to explain to the boss that another person was needed that he couldn’t do the yard and the counter. However, he wasn’t listened to and he was shocked then to be called in on 4th August 2023 and fired. He was given no contract of employment, no fair procedures and no warnings.
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer stated that they did call him in to the office and said this is not working out. But that was in order to have a conversation with him about his attitude. They did not say to him that he was being let go. However, he walked out and they never got a chance to discuss the matter with him. It is argued that as he did not raise a grievance, he cannot succeed in his claim of unfair dismissal. It is noted that he does not have 12 months’ service he cannot avail of the Unfair Dismissals legislation.
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. There was some conflict between the parties’ recollection of what was said on 4th August 2023 when the employment relationship ended. If the Employer intended to bring disciplinary proceedings against him, then they ought to have availed of the practice outlined in S.I. 146/2000 where an employee must be given the charges against him or her, the right to reply, the right to be represented and the right to appeal. The Worker in this case was not given the benefit of due process. There is a conflict regarding whether he was dismissed or walked out having been told the employment relationship was not working out. The fact remains that no due process was given to him and in the circumstances, I find he was unfairly dismissed. In order to draw a line under this dispute, I recommend that the Employer offers, and the Worker accepts a compensatory sum of €2,880 being the equivalent of 4 weeks’ pay at the original rate of pay. This should be considered as a full and final settlement of his dispute. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the Employer offers, and the Worker accepts a compensatory sum of €2,880 being the equivalent of 4 weeks’ pay at the original rate of pay as a full and final settlement of his dispute.
Dated: 14th May 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations, unfair dismissal. |