ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001804
Complaints for Resolution:
Act | Complaints Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 |
CA-00002515-001 |
10/02/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 |
CA-00002515-002 |
10/02/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/04/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Preliminary Issue:
This is a case concerning an Agency worker who is alleging Unfair Dismissal and seeking Minimum notice against the Hirer Company as respondent. The complainant had already directed his claim against the Agency as his employer at a hearing before me on 19 February 2016. ADJ 385 decisions issued on 8 April, 2016 held:
“The complaints against the respondent cannot succeed through lack of jurisdiction. The complainant had lodged proceedings against Employer No 2 and a date for this hearing is awaited “
At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent representative submitted a booklet of documents in defence of the claim. The complainant’s submission and decision linked to ADJ 385, the first case was attached. The respondent made a preliminary objection to my hearing the instant case on the following grounds:
1 The Respondent believes that the decision of the claimant not to join the respondent to the previous proceedings has unfairly prejudiced the Respondent in its defence of this claim.
2 The respondent submitted the principle of Res Judicata applied.
3 The complainant ought to be prevented from having the same dismissal heard twice under the same Act against different respondents.
4 The respondent has been prejudiced by not having the benefit of hearing the claimant’s prior evidence, or having the opportunity to challenge the evidence.
5 The Adjudicator had previously heard the complaint against the Agency and the respondent understood that the Adjudicator would not have previously been party to these events.
The Complainants’ representative addressed these submissions by asking to be permitted to run his case. He explained that the submission he intended on presenting at the hearing was the same submission he relied on in Case No 1. He saw no difficulty for the respondent, given that they had obtained the documents (submission and decision in ADJ 385) from the Agency cited as respondent in the first case and were therefore on prior notice of the case made. The matter of appeal of the decision was under currently under active consideration by his client.
I adjourned the hearing to consider both parties submissions. I then explained to the parties that I intended to proceed with the hearing. I contended that this was a new case and I believed that I was impartial. I wanted to hear both parties. In addition, I explained to the parties that it was open to either party to request the attendance of the Agency at the hearing and neither party had done so. I also asked the parties if they wished to make submissions on Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals Act and both parties indicated they accepted the application of the Act. As Dismissal was disputed by the respondent, I asked the complainant to present their case first.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Complainant has lodged a complainant for Unfair Dismissal and Minimum Notice against the respondent waste recycling company. The complainant commenced work with a recruitment company (The Agency) on August 20th 2012.He was employed as a Lorry driver. The Agency placed the complainant at the Hirer Company where he worked without incident up until 28th October 2015, when he contends that he was summarily dismissed. The complainant submitted a dossier of payslips 2013-2015, naming the recruitment company as paymaster. These payslips indicated variation in hours worked. He was paid 11.50 per hour.
The complainant worked two separate rosters/shifts dependant on the time of year. In late September/early October until March/early April, he worked every Sunday and either Monday /Friday on a 16-30 hr week .In April to August /September, he worked every Sunday and three other 12 hr shifts on a 20 -60 hr week. The complainant had shared parental responsibility for 3 children and this was understood and supported in rostering terms by the Agency and the Hirer company .He also balanced this by supplementary self employment as a Chimney sweep and Coal Delivery man on the days he didn’t work for the Hirer. The roster was notified by means of weekly texts.
September 1st 2015, signified change at the hirer company for the complainant. He commenced work at 6 am on a new route .There were two Army barracks and one Naval base on the run. At the first call, the complainant was accused of delivering the wrong bins by the Agency. He received a call from a Manager with the hirer company MW, at 9am, who stated that the bins had been placed in the wrong place. The complainant sought to explain that the security guard had endorsed his actions but MW said “he would deal with it and he should go on with his duties.” MW informed the claimant that he had been the target for the omissions of the complainant.
The complainant proceeded to the next job where there was another dispute regarding dropping off the incorrect bins. This time at the request of the customer, the complainant had filled his empty space on the lorry with loads of cardboard which he had been asked to dispose of. He received a call from MW to go and collect the incorrect bins from the base but stated that he was unable to do so, given the full load of cardboard. He was enroute to the third call.
The third call was a new route for the complainant and he explained that he had come to deliver wheelie bins and to collect cardboard and plastic. Issues arose on the suitability of the complainant’s lorry for the job as all cardboard had to be loaded on manually. The complainant sought advice from the Hirer company manager and was directed to complete the loading process over a number of loads. He was then informed that a back up lorry was enroute from Bantry to complete the disposal process. The complainant was asked by MW to remain on site to assist the Bantry truck; he was not happy with this direction and sought further advice from the transport manager at the Hirer Office. He was directed to press on with the completion of his load by the transport manager which distressed MW, who was still on site. The complainant contends that he was threatened by MW when he told him that he was pressing on with his work. He recalled MW telling him” I will get you back in other ways, mark my words”
The complainant received a call from Mr G at the Agency a number of days later, informing him that he was being suspended with pay pending an investigation into his behaviour at the Barracks. On or around the 3rd September, the complainant was requested to submit a statement on what had occurred during the three calls. He submitted a document dated September 9th, 2015 which was co signed by Mr G from the Agency, and Mr L, the shop steward.
Approximately three weeks later, the complainant was invited to the Agency office and was informed that a verbal warning was to be placed on his file.
“We have received a few complaints with regard to your derogatory remarks to customers concerning our customer “X” and some of its employees .A verbal warning will be placed in your file for the next six months and any other similar incidents during this period will result in further disciplinary action, as outlined in our employee handbook. You have the right to appeal this decision in writing within seven days of receiving this letter ………”
He was requested to sign this but refused. Mr G then told him to return to work at the Hirer Company but to contact another transport manager there called MT L, who would allocate his days.
The complainant met with TMc L and Mr G at the Hirer company and was informed that his days were to be altered to Friday ,Saturday plus two other 12 hour shifts .When the complainant explained his difficulty in complying with these proposed changes, he was informed by TmcL that these changes were instigated by a new Manager at the Hirer, C Mc E. The complainant explained that Fridays were not possible but that he could do Saturdays.
The complainant was asked to attend the Agency office to meet with Mr G, here he learned again of the proposed changes to his roster. He was also informed that he was to come off the commercial waste route and commence the domestic route “which is widely known in the industry to be a lot more stressful and inconvenient “. The complainant submitted that his reservations on the proposed change went largely unheard by Mr G and he stated in his submission that Mr G told him to accept the changes or receive a P45 .The complainant sought a redundancy payment if he was being dismissed. He was informed by Mr G that the agency agreement referred to the last 10 weeks of service and there was no entitlement to redundancy .He was told to leave and duly did so. He received his P45 approximately two weeks later.
The complainant’s representative contended that the complainant had been summarily dismissed following a slap dash disciplinary process. There were no statements of complaint submitted outside one from MW; there was no corroboration from any other party. Both the Agency and the Hirer were on notice of the complainant’s domestic obligations and the material changes proposed by both served to frustrate the contract of employment. The complainant argued that he had not been afforded fair procedures in accordance with Statutory instrument SI 146/2000. They submitted that the respondent held responsibility in accordance with Sec 13 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment Act) 1993, for the above dismissal in the event that the facts were proven.
The complainant had not claimed job seekers benefit and his average working hours per week were identified as 28.23 hrs . The claimant did not present a submission on mitigation and loss.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The respondent company disputed all claims .The Company operates as Irelands leading provider of integrate waste management solutions over 10 locations and has 600 employees. At the time referred to in the instant claim, the company had secured new business and was seeking to maintain this business. It was submitted ta the hearing that the company was trading out of a very difficult period.
It was common case that the complainant served as a driver, collecting waste and recycling materials from August 20th 2012. The complainant was paid by the Agency.
The respondent submitted that a dismissal did not occur in this case and instead, the complainant failed to turn up for work following a change in his shift patterns. The respondent submitted that all proposed changes were notified to the complainant and he had discussed them with the relevant management. The respondent referred to an earlier submission where the complainant had contended that the Agency was the correct employer . The respondent contended that it was unfair to redirect this charge now against the respondent.
On September 3rd, 2015, the General Manager of the respondent company CmcE contacted the agency to complain that it had been alleged that the complainant had been “badmouthing “and speaking disparingly about the company and about a female member of the Hirer management staff to customers. The respondent submitted a record of this communication.
3 September 2015 @ 17.11hrs
“I have been made aware of 2 recent incidents at customer’s sites where (the complainant) made disparaging comments about our company and our service, and at one of those customers he made offensive and derogatory statements concerning our employee LD. This conduct will not be accepted, I request that the complainant) does not return to our site or carry out any work on our behalf until a full investigation is held into these matters “
AT 17.14 hrs on the same date the Agency emailed the Hirer confirming:
“The complainant has now been suspended with pay, pending further investigation …..”
The respondent stated that an investigation meeting took place on 9th September where the complainant was afforded representation and facilitated in giving his version of events to the investigators on behalf of the Agency. On 18th September, MW submitted his statement from his recollection of an interaction between the complainant and a customer at the third stop on September 1, 2015,” If you think your service is bad now, wait until you see what it will be like with “x” company “ The respondent disputed any threat of retaliatory action from MW towards the complainant .
The respondent was aware that a verbal warning was placed on the complainants file by the Agency, which had not been appealed by the complainant. The respondent submitted that the complainant had never raised a grievance with regard to any issue of dissatisfaction. He was paid a 39 hr week during his period of 6 week period of suspension.
The respondent submitted a cumulative record of shifts worked over a seven day week by the complainant 2012-2015. They supported this grid by referencing that the complainant worked variable days rather than the fixed days stipulated by the complainant.
Sundays 58 from September 2014 45
Mondays 54 from September 2014 20
Tuesday 55 from September 2014 20
Wednesday 21 from September 2014 6
Thursday 56 from September 2014 20
Friday 60 from September 2014 25
Saturday 32 from September 2014 13
The respondent submitted that the Agency informed the complainant of the planned changes to his role and roster on October 1. These changes were necessary to maintain commercial contracts. The respondent stated that they had a concern that the complainant “was likely to say anything “. . . He was advised to contact the hirer company for the details of his roster. He was scheduled to work 4 days during the week after this but failed to appear. T Mc L , for the respondent told the hearing that he had met the complainant , who he got on well with during the last week of September , He did not know about any “ ruling “ and simply rostered him for 4 days .
The respondent stated that the Agency was informed by the complainant that he only had availability during Saturday and Sunday .The respondent removed the complainant from the roster week commencing October 12th, when contact ceased between the parties.
The respondent contended that the Agency had prompted the complainant to contact the hirer for work .On 19th October , T Mc L , a Hirer company supervisor received a text from the complainant stating that his sole availability for work was the following Saturday given his parental responsibilities Monday to Friday . The respondent did not attend for work after that and had to be replaced by the Hirer. The Agency subsequently informed the hirer company that the complainant no longer worked for them. The respondent contended very forcibly that the respondent company could not be held liable for the complainant’s dismissal given the availability of work for the complainant and the past reliance by the complainant that the respondent company had not orchestrated the dismissal.
The respondent submitted a record of texts between both the Agency and the hirer (respondent) between the period of September/October 2015, these referred to an exploration of shift patters and concluded on October 23rd when the Agency text the Hirer informing them that the complainant and his Union Rep were due in to meet at the Agency the following week.
The respondent supplied a copy of the complainants P45 as requested. I also asked the respondent to express a position on the potential for re-instatement as a potential remedy, in the event I was to find in the complainants favour. The respondent asked for an opportunity to reflect on this question and I agreed. They responded shortly after the hearing with a stated preference to avoid any redress of re-instatement given the behaviour of the complainant and the absence of a dismissal in the first instance .
Issues for Decision:
The issue under consideration here is whether the complainant can succeed in his claim for Unfair Dismissal and Minimum Notice against the respondent company.
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977(as amended) provides:
Sec 6(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed for the purposes of the Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal ……
S.6(4) without prejudice to the generality of section 1 , the dismissal of the employee shall be deemed , for the purposes of this Act , not to be an unfair dismissal , if it results wholly or mainly from one of the following:
(b) Conduct of the employee.
S.6(6) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection(4) or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal .
The Adjudicator is permitted to have regarded for “the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by Act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal ….”
Section 7 of the Act outlines potential avenues of redress having regard for all the circumstances
(a) Reinstatement
(b) Re-engagement
(c) Compensation if the employee incurred any loss attributable to the dismissal.
Employment agencies. |
|
(a) the individual shall be deemed to be an employee employed by the third person under a contract of employment, | |
(b) if the contract was made before such commencement, it shall be deemed to have been made upon such commencement, and | |
(c) Any redress under the Principal Act for unfair dismissal of the individual under the contract shall be awarded against the third person. |
Findings and Conclusions of the Adjudicator:
I have listened carefully to the parties in this case. I have also read the submissions before me . I accept in part the frustration expressed by the respondent that they were expected to defend a claim for dismissal where they had not had the last word in the case, nor had they actively engaged in the Disciplinary procedure or dismissal. However, I am also mindful that the complainant made it clear to the hearing that he felt compelled to name both parties as separate respondents to protect his interests. In addition, I appreciate that the events took place in the early days of the WRC formation and I accept the statement on behalf of the complainant that the new procedures required a careful approach to be adopted. I am also familiar with the practice of linking the intended respondents as in the case of Dacas v Brook St Bureau [2004]15ELR 358 and Bourton V Narcea ltd /AIBP UD186/1994 , where AIBP joined proceedings and was held by the EAT to be the employer for the purposes of a claim for constructive dismissal .
I have reflected again on the respondent submission that I might wish to recuse myself from the case and I genuinely see no grounds to support this suggestion and note that the statement was not accompanied by a formal objection from either party. I wish to restate that I believe that I approached this case in an impartial manner and treated both sides with equal respect and attention on the road to the application of the Law to the facts in my decision making. I informed the parties of their mutual right of appeal to the Labour Court in the event they thought it prudent.
This case is bereft of the submission of contracts of employment by either party. In addition, I suggest that the case suffered from not having CmcE and Mr G attend the hearing . While I appreciate that the respondent was clearly briefed by the Agency in advance of the hearing ,it would have been helpful if the authors of key emails and investigators of key complaints were available to the hearing to allow the evidence to be tested by both parties . I pressed on in their absence.
Both parties accepted the application of Section 13 of the Act as amended applied in this case. The Act provides that the “end user” the Hirer is identified as the employer in the case of a claim for Unfair Dismissal .
.It was common case that the complainant was placed by the Hirer with the” end user”, the respondent in 2012. I accept the submission of 64 payslips from 8/9/2013 to 1/11/2015 as proof of the Agency being the paymaster. In a growing body of authority across Ireland and the UK,, the identification of the correct employer in the case of an Agency employee has been delineated in Motorola V Davids [2001]IRLR 4 , Rooney v Diageo Global supply [2004]ELR 133, Dacas v Brook St Bureau UK ltd[2004] 15 ELR 358 and Agnieska Spyra v Ryanair ltd DEC E2013-195.
1 Complaint Management and Disciplinary Process
Both parties described an uneventful working history until the events described above unfolded on September 1, 2015. I have examined the joint submissions in this regard and am drawn back to the email on record from Cmc E to Mr G at close of business on 3 September 2015. This ended with a request by the Hirer to the Agency that the complainant “does not return to our site or carry out any work on our behalf until a full investigation is held into these matters”
This request appears to have been acted on in lightning fashion when 3 minutes later; the Hirer was informed by Mr G that the complainant had been suspended pending further investigation into his behaviour in the Barracks,
I find that what happened subsequently could not be reasonably interpreted as an investigation and instead seemed more like a recollection of events by the complainant which were recorded by Mr G of the Agency in the company of the Shop steward DL.I am struck by the last line of this record on September 9th:
“I asked X that at any time did he make any derogatory remarks to any of the guards and X said No “
This served as the last line of this record.
This document was then followed in the chronology by the statement of MW which was co signed by CMc E . This statement did not reveal the identity of the actual complainant “ I met a person who does not want to be named …….”
I find that the respondent acted on a third party complaint and did not take any reasonable measure to identify the complainant. This was a breach of fair procedures and natural justice.Re Haughey [1971]IR 217 and S.146/2000. The fact that the complainant had been suspended by telephone on September 3rd and the statement at the root of the events was not in the hands of the respondent at that time is most disappointing. I refer to the recent commentary by Noonan J in the High Court case of Bank of Ireland and James Reilly [2015] IEHC 241
“The suspension of an employee, whether paid or unpaid, is an extremely serious matter which can cause irreparable damage to his reputation and standing .It is potentially capable of constituting a significant blemish on the employees employment record with consequences for his future career….Inevitably, speculation will arise as to the reasons for the suspension on the premise of there being no smoke without fire.”
I find that I concur with this opinion and find considerable overlaps in this case. I find that the respondent failed to act in a symbiotic manner in relation to the management of the complaint which emanated from September 1. I find that it would have been reasonable to consider the scope to do more than email an exclusion order to the Agency and to consider if there was further scope to present as a member of a tri partite complaint resolution procedure. Neither party presented a complaints procedure in active use in either employment and I find that the entire case has suffered by this omission. I find that it is an entirely legitimate aim on behalf of the respondent to seek to protect their commercial reputation but it should not have been at the expense of the complainant’s reputation. The issues first highlighted by the Hirer do not appear to have been put in their totality to the complainant as evidenced in the lack of detail on the record of the verbal warning .
I find that there was a fatal lack of 1:1 conversations between the Hirer and the Agency incorporating a contribution by the complainant in the wake of September 1. Given the sophistication associated with the “ Triangulation” employment relationship communication of this nature is a necessary corner stone for progress., I find that the complainant lost out on the “ twin track parallel mutually exclusive approach “ adopted by the Hirer and the Agency . This added a wholly unnecessary level of confusion to the proceedings.
I find that the pro offered investigation was not addressed in the meeting of September 9th and that there was an undue delay in the respondent reinstating the complainant’s roster. However, I must find that the complainant did not help himself when he refused to either sign or appeal the notification of the verbal warning on September 30th. I find that this created a lack of respect.
I am troubled by the lack of consistency in the approach adopted by the respondent in relation to the requested investigation as grounds for the suspension on September 3rd. The company clearly offered work to the complainant without a completed investigation. This is worrying. I find that the proposal to change the roster and the role of the complainant from commercial to domestic waste was not advanced in a fair and reasonable way by the respondent. In the wake of a recorded verbal warning on the file, I find that one punishment should have been sufficient. I find that it was unreasonable to insist on radical change so soon after the application of the verbal warning. I can appreciate that the respondent wished to protect their customer base, but again the mutually exclusive twin track approach was unreasonable. There is only room for one disciplinarian and one subject in any disciplinary procedure. Therefore, I find that these procedures were tainted by unfairness.
2 Dismissal
Section 13 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993 identifies the Hirer as the employer in the case of a claim for statutory unfair dismissal. There is a very high bar of responsibility therefore expected of the respondent in this case. I do not believe, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, that the respondent in this case readily understood or accepted the primary responsibility of being the complainant’s employer for the purposes of the Act.
Sedley L.J. stated in Dacas
“It is important to bear in mind that a great deal more hangs on the legal status of a worker than the workers’ own rights though they are important enough. An employer is vicariously liable for injury to others caused by an employees’ carelessness and is required by statute to ensure against it; but an enterprise will have no liability for harm done by somebody working for it who is not an employee.”
It is important that where two employers share legislative responsibility for employees that all parties should be aware of the parameters to the relationship. This is best addressed in a contract of employment.
Many parties have been faced with this dilemma in the past and the Courts/Tribunal s have had to adjudicate on the true identity of the employer as in the cases mentioned above and more recently in Ambrose V Serona ltd UD 123/2006[2007] 18 ELR 184 where the EAT found that the end user was in fact the true employer in the case of an unfair dismissal and awarded compensation accordingly.
In this case, I find that the series of events, commencing on September 3rd and concluding on the premises of the Agency on October 28th 2015 formed a 6 week period of opaqueness in the mind of the complainant .I accept the respondent records that the complainant had maintained a work record over seven days a week rather than five from September 2014. However, this is secondary to the sequence of the main events.
The facts of this case present a twin track approach by the Hirer and the Agency
1 The Hirer directed the suspension and investigation following identification of the initial complainant.
2 The Agency activated the suspension, investigation, verbal warning and approval to return to work at the behest of the respondent .
3 The Hirer sought to change the roster and role of the complainant in the wake of this.
4 The Hirer removed the complainant from the roster on October 12th and subsequently.
5 The Agency told the Hirer that the complainant was not coming back to work.
6 The Agency issued the P45
7 The Hirer replaced the complainant.
I must be guided by the parameters of Section 13 of the Act. I have listened carefully to the complainant’s description of his recollection of the meeting of October 28th. He referred to it several times during the hearing as the day” I was fired “. I believe that this was a reasonable interpretation for him to form in the absence of evidence to the contrary . He did not, however action an appeal of this decision which might have created a bi lateral impetus by the Hirer and the Agency to address this situation at an earlier juncture. Neither did he seek a rationale from the respondent within the 14 period set down under the Act .
The respondent was clear in the defence of the claim that work was available to the complainant and that he turned his back on this work, thus negating a claim for dismissal. I cannot accept this as an accurate reflection of events. The complainant had worked continuously from 2012 with the Hirer , bar his 6 weeks of suspension , I accept that he was faced with considerable pressure to alter his role and roster and this was unprecedented for him and left him in a “ No mans land “
I must address the conduct of the respondent in the face of the claim for Unfair Dismissal. I find that the respondent did not act reasonably towards the complainant. There was a rush to judgement which did not allow a platform for fair procedures in the management or recovery from the complaint following September 1 tour of duty. The respondent delegated excessive authority to the Agency to address the perceived shortcomings of the complainant without a shared investment in the parameters of the code of practice SI146/2000 on Disciplinary procedures or a clear adherence to the primary responsibility as an employer for the purposes of the Act .
In addition, the complainant was faced with an ultimatum of accepting the changes to his employment or be dismissed. I find that a reasonable employer would have intervened sooner in the management of this impasse. Based on the facts as presented to me, I find that the procedures adopted by the respondent were lacking in procedural fairness and were accompanied by undue haste and lack of precision. Therefore, I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent, not withstanding that the dismissal occurred on the Agency premises. I also find that the complainant contributed in someway towards the dismissal.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Section of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to section 4 of that Act.
I have given some thought to appropriate redress in this case. I am mindful of the reported excellent relations between the parties until the events of September 1. I am also mindful of the subsequent erosion of trust between the parties which has its roots in the legacy of the complaint of September 3rd and the respondent’s perception that the complainant walked out of his job. I believe that it rests within the gift of both parties to work to remedy this .
I find the most appropriate remedy open to me to is that of re-engagement for the complainant on the” commercial run” from March 1 2016. I appreciate that there may be operational issues to be addressed on rosters and clarification of roles that might be best addressed collectively through the tri-partite format of the Hirer, the Agency and the complainant going forward.
The claim for minimum notice therefore fails.
Dated: 14th July 2016