Worker

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Industrial Cleaner

Cleaning Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. Peter Dunlea, Peninsula Business Serivces (Ireland)

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00061626-001

19/02/2024

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 28th January 2023. At all relevant times the Worker’s role was described as that of “industrial cleaner”. The Worker’s employment was terminated by the Employer on 22nd September 2023.

On 19th February 2024, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that that his dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. While the Employer did not issue a submission contesting these allegations, at the hearing of the matter they submitted that they engaged in a process that broadly respected the Worker’s natural and contractual rights.

Following the Employer’s failure to object to the dispute within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 31st May 2024. The Worker issued a submission in advance of the hearing, while the Employer provided an oral submission during the hearing. Both submissions were contested by the opposing side. At the outset of the hearing the nature of the hearing itself and the recommendation to be issued was explained to the parties. During the hearing the Worker confirmed that he wished to continue under the impleaded Act and stated that the was anxious for a recomendation to issue.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

By submission, the Worker stated that prior to working with the Employer, he was engaged by an associated organisation. The Worker stated that he enjoyed his work and got on well with management and colleagues alike. 

On 6th September 2023, the Worker was invited to attend a meeting with the Employer’s company director. During this meeting, the Worker was informed that the Employer was in the process of sizing down, and while there were no issues with the standard of the Worker’s work, they would unfortunately have to let him go. The Company Director then handed the Worker correspondence and stated that the same confirmed that conversation they had. When the Worker reviewed the correspondence some time later, he discovered that the same alleged that the parent company was unhappy with his work ethic, that he didn’t demonstrate the skills and ability to perform the role and that the parent company wished for him to be removed from the site. Naturally, this correspondence caused the Worker an incredible amount of distress. When the Worker sought to discuss the same with the Company Director, he was informed that the correspondence was a standard letter, and that he was not to worry. This explanation did not address any of the Worker’s concerns and he sought to appeal the same by way of the internal process. While the Employer did seek to organise an appeal meeting with the Worker, they refused to provide any details of the allegations against him, or to set out the grounds for his dismissal in the first instance. Finally, the Employer issued a copy of the Worker’s HR file to him. On review of these documents, the Worker discovered a document purporting to be minutes of a disciplinary meeting held with him. By submission that Worker categorically stated that these minutes were not in any way an accurate account of what occurred at the meeting. In particular, the Worker denied that he had ever received previous warnings in relation to his conduct as outlined in the minutes. The Worker further submitted that the document in question had been created on 24th October, some weeks following the meeting itself.

By submission, the Worker stated that his dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. In this regard, he stated that the grounds of his dismissal were not based on any actual complaint by the parent company and remained entirely unproved by the date of the hearing. The Worker categorically denied any of the allegations outlined in the letter of dismissal. He further submitted that he did not receive any copy of the complaints made against him prior to his dismissal and was not afforded any form of process in relation to the same. In such circumstances, the Worker submitted that his dismissal was unfair and that a recommendation should issue in his favour.

By response, the Employer denied the allegations raised by the Worker and submitted that he was dismissed following a process that broadly respected his natural and contractual rights.

By submission, the Employer stated that just prior to the Worker’s dismissal, they were in the process of reducing the number of employees assigned to his site. During this process, the Employer received some complaints regarding the standard of the Worker’s output, and on foot of the same, they elected to terminate his contract. In this regard, the Employer relied on the minutes of the meetings contained within his file. They further submitted that the Worker was given the option of appealing the outcome but elected not to engage in this process.

By submission, the Employer accepte that some procedural deficiencies arose in the manner by which they dismissed the Worker. Nonetheless, they submitted that the worker was made aware of the issues raised against him and was given an opportunity by way of the appeal meeting to address the same.

Regarding the present dispute, it the Worker has alleged that his dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. While the Employer accepted that some deficiencies in the procedure utilised to affect the Worker’s dismissal, they stated that his rights were generally protected during the process.

In this regard, it is common case that the Worker was invited to a meeting on 6th September 2023 and summarily dismissed. While it is apparent that the ostensible reason for this dismissal was the reduction in headcount on site, the letter of dismissal outlines various issues regarding conduct and capability. In this regard, the Worker stated that this was entirely at odds with what was discussed at the brief meeting with the Company Director. He also stated that he never received the detail of these alleged complaints against him or the basis for the findings set out in the correspondence. He further submitted that when he sought to contest these matters with the Company Director, he was informed that correspondence was “a standard letter” with the clear implication that the Employer did not have any basis for the findings contained therein. While it is noted that the Employer has sought to rely on purported minutes of meeting to dispute the Worker’s version of events, given that the Worker provided his first-hand account of what occurred during this meeting, I prefer his version of events. Notwithstanding the same, even the Employer’s submission was to be taken at its height, it is apparent that the Employer did not engage in any form of investigation in respect to the purported allegations against the Worker, did not take any statements from the parties involved, did not provide with Worker with any of the purported evidence to be used against him, did not allow for a right of representation, did not accurately record the meeting and had made the decision to dismiss the Worker in advance of the same. Such a process, insofar as the same be called a process, is fundamentally unfair towards the Worker. While the Employer did engage with the Worker in respect to an appeal of this decision, it is noted that they continued to refuse to provide any detail of the allegations made against the Worker prior to the same. In circumstances whereby the Worker could not possibly defend such broad and apparently baseless allegations, I find that he it was reasonable on his behalf to refuse to attend any such meeting.

Having regard to the accumulation of foregoing points, I recommend on favour of the Worker. During the hearing the Worker submitted that the baseless allegations against him caused him significant distress. In this regard, having considered the submissions of both parties, it is clear that no finding of misconduct exists in relation to the Worker, and that he should view his employment record with the Employer as being without blemish. In addition to the foregoing, it should be noted that the details of any allegations against the Worker have not been particularised either prior to or following his dismissal, and the Worker may safely assume that no such allegations exist.

In circumstances whereby the parties no longer enjoy a working relationship, I find that compensation is the most appropriate form of remedy in the circumstances. Having regard to the totality of evidence presented, I recommended that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €5,000 in settlement of the dispute.

I recommend in favour of the Worker. In circumstances whereby the parties no longer enjoy a working relationship, I find that compensation is the most appropriate form of remedy in the circumstances. Having regard to the totality of evidence presented, I recommended that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €5,000 in settlement of the dispute.

Dismissal, Procedure, Allegations