Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00062463-001

28/03/2024

The Worker referred a dispute to the WRC on the 28th March 2024 wherein he claimed that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Employer. The Employer denied the dispute in its entirety.

The Worker was not represented and made his own case. He relied on the narrative as outlined in the WRC Complaint Form.  I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Worker’s case. The evidence adduced by the Worker at the first hearing was challenged by the Employer’s Director.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

The Employer was represented by its Director at the first hearing and by Peninsula Business Services Ireland at the second hearing. No documentation was provided by the Employer in advance of the first hearing. When it became apparent that the matter was going to require a further hearing date it was agreed that the Employer could furnish written submissions to the WRC by the 6th December 2024 however it failed to do so. The Employer’s Representative provided me with a written submission received on the 10th February 2025. No oral evidence was provided by the Employer.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

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

At the first hearing the Worker indicated that he had an audio recording of the meeting on the 26th March 2024. The Employer’s Director objected to the audio recording being played at the hearing. When it became apparent that the matter was going to require a further hearing date the Employer was directed to set out its objections in writing on or before the 6th December 2024. No submissions were received by the WRC by that date. Written submissions were received by the Employer’s Representative on the 10th February 2025. The Employer’s Director did not attend the rescheduled hearing and the Worker’s evidence was uncontested. In the circumstances of the instant case I concluded that the oral evidence of the parties outweighed the evidential value of the recording and I did not proceed to listen to the recording. 

The dispute was referred to the WRC under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

Section 13 Industrial Relations Acts, as amended, states as follows:

13.—

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of Workers) exists or is apprehended and involves Workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to an [Adjudication Officer].

(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, an [Adjudication Officer] shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled—

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute,

The Worker commenced the narrative within his complaint on the WRC Complaint Form by stating:

“The nature of my complaint is that I feel that I have been dismissed without been given any opportunity to plead my case , for a job that I started as an assistant manager …, there was no warning in relation to late and there was no opportunity to investigate further manager just requested my key and dismissed me … ”

The Worker confirmed at the hearing that the trade dispute which he was seeking a recommendation in respect of related to his unfair dismissal.  Therefore, in line with the above, I will proceed to investigate the Worker’s dispute and make a recommendation, if appropriate or necessary, arising from that investigation.

The dispute raised by the Worker is in essence a claim of unfair dismissal. On the basis that the Worker had less than the 12 months service, required under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) in order to avail of the protections provided by that Act, the Worker referred this dispute to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Acts 1969.

The Worker commenced his employment with the Employer on the 17th July 2023. His employment ended on the 26th March 2024 and he referred his dispute to the WRC on the 28th March 2024. At the date of dismissal he earned €12.70 gross per hour. He stated that his net monthly wages were in and around €1,200 per month.  

The Worker stated that on the 26th March 2024 he was called into a meeting with his Manager and the Area Manager and without any prior warning, investigation or disciplinary process he was dismissed from his employment with the Employer. He was not given any substantive rationale for his dismissal.

I am guided by S.I. No. 146 of 2000 – Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures), which sets out a basic procedure which an employer should follow prior to dismissing an employee. These include putting the allegations to the employee in writing in advance of a hearing, allowing the employee the opportunity to properly defend himself at the hearing, permitting the appropriate right of representation, and allowing an internal appeal of any determination. In essence, the Code of Practice requires that the procedures for dealing with workplace disciplinary matters (reflecting the varying circumstances of enterprises/organisations) must comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures, also confirmed in jurisprudence.

Notwithstanding that the employment relationship has usually ceased in such disputes, there are numerous examples of the employment fora recommending awards of compensation in respect of dismissals (with less than one year’s service required for a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts) where there has been a breach of fair procedures.  In particular, the WRC and the Labour Court has consistently found that employers are required to afford due process to employees before a decision to terminate employment is taken, where there is less than a years’ service.

The Labour Court emphasised the importance of fair procedures in Beechside Company Limited t/a Park Hotel Kenmare v. A Worker, LCR21798, noting: “… it is imperative that an employer in a dismissal case must not only show that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal but also that fair and proper procedures were followed before the dismissal takes place. This requirement of procedural fairness is rooted in the common law concept of natural justice.”

The Employer’s Director attended the first hearing at which he accepted that he was not present at the meeting on the 26th March 2024. I did not have the benefit of hearing from the Worker’s Manager and Area Manager who were involved in the meeting on the 26th March 2024 and who summarily dismissed the Worker. I found the Worker to be an impressive witness and his account of the circumstances giving rise to his dismissal wholly credible.

Following my inquiries and having taken into account the evidence of the Worker it is apparent that the Employer did not follow any of the steps outlined above, and more particularly set out in S.I. No. 146 of 2000 – Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures), and simply dismissed the Worker without any prior warning and for no apparent reason. Such a dismissal is clearly substantively and procedurally unfair.

I find that the Employer in this case has disregarded the fundamental principles of fair procedure and natural justice in the manner in which it effected the Worker’s dismissal. I am satisfied that the Employer’s handling of the entire matter breached the Worker’s right to fair procedures and natural justice, and he was dismissed without any due process and as a consequence of the same I recommend in favour of the Worker.

Having heard from the Worker I am satisfied that he made reasonable attempts to mitigate his losses and that it was three months before he was earning approximately the same wages as he earned with the Employer.