Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Oleksandr  Svitlychnyi

Treatvale Ltd t/a The Happy Family Bakery

Representatives

Jack Lundy Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00073025-001

01/07/2025

The complainant had only a few days’ service with the respondent, but he claims that he is brought within the jurisdiction of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 on the ground related to the National Minimum Wage. This is addressed as a preliminary issue.

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

He stated that he worked for three days and one day’s pay remains outstanding.

He confirmed in his evidence that at no stage did he ever refer to the National Minimum Wage in any interaction with the respondent.

He complains that he was never officially hired in writing but  performed real job duties under direct supervision and instruction for three full working days. My termination was carried out without any due process: no investigation, no warnings (verbal or written), no disciplinary hearing, and no opportunity to respond or appeal.

He was not presented with any training agreement or written policy. On 30 June, the employer attempted to retroactively formalise his employment and dismissal by asking him to sign a backdated resignation letter and contract;  a clear attempt to shift legal responsibility.

This dismissal was procedurally unfair and he requests that the WRC review this complaint as a case of unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

The Complainant has lodged a claim CA-00073025-001: under section 8 of the UDA 1977 that he was unfairly dismissed. He entered into a contract of employment on 20 June 2025 as a driver/sales representative.

The Respondent operates a bakery and the complainant was dismissed orally on 26 June 2025 due to poor performance. He was observed over a number of days and it was decided to terminate his employment given his length of service and poor performance. A formal termination letter was sent to him by email on 30 June 2025 which also makes it clear that he would receive all wages due for completed work on 11 July 2025.

The complainant alleges that he was dismissed for invoking his rights under the National Minimum Wage Act. The respondent denies that he was dismissed for this reason or that he invoked any right under this legislation prior to his dismissal. He was dismissed due to his poor performance.

The Respondent denies that he was told anything that training would be unpaid. He was verbally dismissed from employment on 26 June 2025. Even  if he had been told that his training was unpaid, which is denied, he cannot say that he was dismissed for this reason when the dismissal occurred one day previouson26June2025.

The Complainant lacks the required length of service to bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

 In O’Donovan v. Over-C Technology Limited and Over-C Limited [2021] IECA 37, the Court of Appeal stated that the principles of natural justice apply to cases involving dismissal for misconduct, but not to termination on other grounds.

The  employment was terminated due to poor performance and he was offered the opportunity to appeal his dismissal but did not do so.

The National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 permits jurisdiction by providing for exceptions to the twelve month qualifying period in respect of the exercise or proposed exercise of rights under that Act.

The relevant section is Section 36 of that Act which is as follows.

36.—(1) An employer shall not cause or suffer any action prejudicial to an employee for the employee having—

(a) exercised or having proposed to exercise a right under this Act,

(b) in good faith opposed or proposed to oppose by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(c) become, or in future will or might become, entitled in accordance with this Act to remuneration at an hourly rate of pay that on average is not less than the national minimum rate of pay, or a particular percentage of that rate of pay.

(2) Dismissal of an employee in contravention of subsection (1) shall be deemed to be an unfair dismissal of the employee within the meaning and for the purposes of section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 1993 (but without prejudice to sections 2 to 5 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977   except that it is not necessary for the employee to have at least one year’s continuous service with the employer and that Act shall apply as if the Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991, were repealed in relation to the number of hours an employee is normally expected to work for the purposes of that Act) and those Acts, with the necessary modifications, shall apply accordingly.

This was addressed as a preliminary matter.

As is clear from the complainant’s evidence above the exercise or proposed exercise of rights under the National Minimum Wage played no part in the circumstances leading to the termination of the complainant’s employment.

Likewise the respondent denied that any interaction on that Act took place and indeed submitted that the complainant was paid on the basis of the national minimum wage in force at the time.

Accordingly  I find that he cannot avail of the exemption which would bring the complaint within the normal time limits and complaint CA-00073025-001 is not within jurisdiction and is not upheld.

Complaint CA-00073025-001 is not within jurisdiction and is not upheld.

Unfair Dismissals Act, jurisdiction