ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000924
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Cleaner | A Cleaning Company |
Representatives |
| Warren Parkes Warren Parkes Solicitors |
Dispute(s):
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 - 00000924 | 07/12/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Date of Hearing: 01/12/2023
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 worked with the company from 12th July 2021 until 10th July 2022. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker says he was bullied and harassed at work by a supervisor. He was not allowed go on lunchbreak or to the toilet. He was punished by having to carry very heavy bags to another side of the site. He was told to go to another cafeteria which was not correct. He was getting conflicting messages. He was grabbed around the throat on 2nd February 2022, pushed and threatened by another employee. He reported this to the Manager who should have carried out an investigation. The Employee asked to move to another area, but he wasn’t moved. No action was taken in relation to his complaints. He had serious anxiety. He removed his glove on the site because he was going to the toilet. Another colleague took a photo of his badge and grabbed his hoody. He was physically aggressive. The Employee told him to “ pxxx off” and leave him alone. He explained the situation to the Manager and was fired.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer has raised a preliminary issue that the Employer did not receive notification to allow it to object to the trade dispute in accordance with S36 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and says the Workplace Relations Commission do not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The Employer says the Worker was employed from 12th July 2021 until 10th September 2021 and 13th December 2021 until 10th June 2022. The Respondent received a complaint from its client that the Worker was on site but not wearing his Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) safety glasses and gloves. He used abusive/foul language to a Manager when he was challenged as to why he was not wearing his PPE. The Worker was called to a meeting with the Manager when the specifics of the complaint was put to him. He admitted not wearing his PPE and there was no reason for this. He accepted he told the manager to “pxxx off”. The Worker was on six months probation at the time. He had previously received a written warning on 3rd June 2021 for safety related issues including failure to attend at compulsory toolbox safety meetings in May 2021. The Worker raised an issue about being grabbed by the manager. An independent employee of the security company on site gave a statement that said he saw hand gestures or gesticulation, he saw no physical contact between the Worker and the manager. The decision was made to summarily dismiss the Worker for gross misconduct and his employment was terminated immediately. The Employer relies on S8 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 that nothing shall affect the right of an employer to terminate a contract of employment without notice because of misconduct and S6 (4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 that conduct is a fair ground for dismissal.
|
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
The Employer has raised a preliminary issue that the Employer did not receive notification to allow it to object to the trade dispute in accordance with S36 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and says the Workplace Relations Commission do not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. we are satisfied that a letter of 5th September 2023 was sent by the Workplace Relations Commission to the Respondent by post enclosing notification under S36 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The correspondence was not returned undelivered.
The Worker says he was bullied and harassed at work by a supervisor. He was not allowed go on lunchbreak or to the toilet. He was punished by having to carry very heavy bags to another side of the site. He was told to go to another cafeteria which was not correct. He was getting conflicting messages. He says his complaints were never investigated or dealt with by the Employer. The Worker was given a formal written warning on 3rd June 2022 for failing to attend compulsory safety meetings and toolbox talks and being asleep outside of his break period on 2nd June 2022. The warning remained on his record for 6 months. On 10th June 2022 there was a report the Worker abused a senior manager when he was asked to leave the site following a health and safety breach as he was not wearing his full PPE. The Worker alleged the Manager grabbed him, however, this was not seen by a security guard nearby. The Worker admitted not wearing his PPE and swearing at the Manager. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. In the circumstances, I recommend 490.88 euro gross.
|
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Dated: 29th November 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
|