ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002770

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Forklift Driver	A Building Product Supplier

Representatives

In person

Peninsula - Did not attend

Dispute:

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Dispute seeking adjudication under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	IR-SC-00002770	21/06/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey

Date of Hearing: 06/03/2025

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 was employed as a forklift driver from 20th September 2023 until 19th June 2024. The dispute relates to the worker’s dismissal from the company. As the worker did not have the requisite one year’s service to bring a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the referral is made under the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Summary of Workers Case:

The worker stated that he was employed for approximately 9 months and had passed his probationary period and had received an increase in his rate of pay. The worker acknowledged that he had been late on a couple of occasions and had missed a day or two of work during the employment but that these issues had not been raised formally with him and no disciplinary process was initiated by the employer. The worker stated that he was surprised to be called to a meeting on 19th June 2024 and summarily dismissed by the Warehouse Manager.

The worker claims that his dismissal was unfair as he was not afforded the right to fair procedures in relation to the issues that led to his dismissal.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The employer did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

Conclusions:

It is unfortunate that the employer did not attend the adjudication hearing to put forward its position in relation to the dispute. The employer’s representative notified the WRC that its client would not be attending the hearing. This occurred even though the employer had been given the opportunity to object to the adjudication by letter dated 1st July 2024 and had not done so.

Having considered the matter, I note that the worker had completed the probationary period and was a permanent employee when he was summarily dismissed on 19th June 2024 without any disciplinary process being initiated by the employer. The worker stated that he had never been given a staff handbook and was unaware of the appropriate grievance and disciplinary process that the employer should have used. It was also the worker’s position that the performance/disciplinary issues had never been raised with him even on an informal basis.

I note the findings of the Labour Court in Labour Court Recommendation: LCR22710 where it awarded €10,000. 00 in compensation to a worker who was denied fair procedures when she was dismissed during the probationary period for performance issues that she was unaware of and not given the opportunity to address. While the worker in the within dispute was no longer on probation, I note the similarities of both cases where there was no process put in place by the employer which denied the worker the right to fair procedures in respect of the issues that led to his dismissal.

In conclusion, I find that the worker was unfairly dismissed by the employer and should receive compensation as a result.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I find that the worker was unfairly dismissed.

I recommend that the employer pay the worker €10,000.00 in compensation.

Dated: 07th of March 2025