UDD2613

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00042615 (CA00053114-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officerto the Labour Court on 9 August 2024 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 April 2026.

The following is the Decision of the Court: -

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Ms Caroline Barnes (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00042615/CA-00053114-001, dated 10 July 2024) under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 9 August 2024. The appeal was heard in Dublin on 14 April 2026.

Brief Overview of Facts

The Complainant commenced employment with OCS One Complete Solution Limited (‘the Respondent’) from 7 September 2021 on a permanent part-time contract. She worked 20 hours per week, 4 hours per day, Monday to Friday. Her rate of pay was €13.00 per hour.

On Sunday 25 September 2022, the Complainant received an instruction to attend at a client site which was not her usual place of work to provide cover there for two weeks, commencing on Monday 26 September. The Complainant complied with the instruction given to her. A Manager from the Respondent attended at the site on Wednesday 28 September and took issue with aspects of the Complainant’s work. The Manager gave an instruction to the Complainant which the Complainant refused to comply with. The Manager asked her to leave the site and not to return there.

The Complainant construed the Manager’s instruction to leave the site as a dismissal. She contacted her solicitor while travelling home that afternoon and arranged for a consultation the following morning. She also contacted her usual Line Manager and the Respondent’s Human Resources department. Human Resources undertook to look into the issues raised by the Complainant. Having done so, a HR executive sent an email early on 29 September to the Complainant advising her that her employment had not been terminated. The Complainant submitted her complaint form to the Workplace Relations Commission on 5 October 2022. She had not commenced in alternative employment as of the date of the within hearing.

Dismissal in Dispute

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was not dismissed from its employment on 28 September 2022 or at all. Dismissal is therefore in dispute and, accordingly, the burden of establishing that a dismissal occurred as alleged falls on the Complainant.

The Complainant’s Evidence

The Complainant told the Court that she was contacted over the weekend prior to Monday 26 September 2022 and asked to attend at a named client’s site at 7.30 am the following morning. She said she accepted the instruction but arrived late, at about 8.00 am, as her bus ran late. The Manager, Ms B, who had asked her to attend the site was present and showed her around the site.

The Complainant said that she was late again attending the site the following Wednesday. Her evidence was that Ms B attended at the site at approximately 3.30 pm, telephoned the Complainant and screamed down the phone at her. The Complainant said that she met Ms B in the canteen and Ms B told her to wash the floor. The Complainant advised that she would do it the following morning as there was somebody using the canteen at the time. According to the Complainant, Ms B then told her that she was dismissed, and she relieved her of her badge. The Complainant said she handed in her keys to the site.

The Complainant then reached out, she said, to Mr JH – whom she described as ‘the gaffer at OCS’ – to her usual Line Manager, Ms CW, and to Human Resources. She said that when Ms CW had not returned her call she decided to contact a solicitor. She did that on the bus home and arranged an appointment with the solicitor at 11.00 am the following morning. In response to a question from her Counsel, the Complainant said that she had never received a grievance policy from the Respondent.

Under cross-examination, the Complainant was referred to her email to Human Resources dated 28 September 2022 which reads:

“I Caroline Barnes was working in [client company] at the airport [Ms B] arrived on site asked me to wash the floor in the canteen I said no as there was (sic) people in it I told her I do it tomorrow but that was not good enough for her, so she told me to get off site and don’t return tomorrow she did this in front of the main boss [Mr J McC] as this is unfair dismissal I’m going to take this matter further.”

It was put to the Complainant that she did not state in the email that Ms B had told her that she was dismissed. The Complainant said in reply that she concluded that she had been dismissed as she had returned her keys, and they had been accepted.

It was then put to the Complainant that she received a replying email from Human Resources before close of business that evening undertaking to look into the situation and to revert. It was further put to the Complainant that she sent another email to Human Resources stating:

“There is no point in looking into this situation, [Ms B] did not follow any protocol I’m taking this very serious (sic) as she has me so upset I’m really taking this further.”

It was next put to the Complainant that she received correspondence from Human Resources at 10.25 am the following morning which clearly advised that while she had been asked to leave that particular site by Ms B she had not been dismissed, that alternative hours would be provided to her in a suitable location and attaching the grievance policy.

The Complainant initially denied receiving or reading this correspondence. It was then put to her that she had actually replied to it at 11.09 am that day. The Complainant stated in her replying email:

“I refused to wash the canteen because that is a health and safety (sic) as there was a person there having their lunch, as she was demanding me to wash the canteen if the (sic) or any other people came in to the canteen if they slipped and hurted (sic) themselves who would be responsible me or [Ms B]”

When questioned about her recollection of events, the Complainant accepted that she had replied to the Respondent’s email advising that she hadn’t been dismissed but hadn’t read it properly and taken it in because her head was ‘all over the place’.

The Complainant was also questioned about her assertion that Ms CW had not made any attempt to contact her after 28 September 2022. An email from Ms CW to the Complainant dated 3 October 2022 was opened. It reads:

“Hi Caroline

Further to the emails sent and received last week I have tried to contact you a number of times and have not been able to reach you.

As advised I need to discuss alternative working arrangements with you, can you please contact me as a matter of urgency.

Kind regards,

[C]”

Finally, it was put to the Complainant that she received a further email from Human Resources dated 7 October 2022 to which was attached a Statement of Terms and Conditions and a copy of the Respondent’s Grievance Procedure.

Discussion and Decision

The version of events beginning on 28 September 2022 recounted by the Complainant in her direct evidence is totally at odds with the contemporaneous correspondence exchanged between the Parties at that time. No reasonable person, in the Court’s view, could construe from that correspondence that the Respondent regarded the Complainant as having been dismissed from her employment on 28 September 2022 or any date thereafter. Quite the opposite, the Respondent was at pains to advise the Complainant that it would arrange to provide her with work in an alternative suitable location.

The Court, therefore, finds that the Complainant has not established that a dismissal within the meaning of the Act occurred on 28 September 2022 or at all. Her appeal under the Act fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
FC	______________________
15th April 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.