ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005933
Complaint Reference No.
Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/03/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
On the 17th November 2016, the complainant referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. The complaints were scheduled for adjudication on the 31st March 2017.
The complainant was represented by McInnes Dunne Solicitors. The respondent was represented by Stephen O’Sullivan, BL, instructed by Bowler Geraghty & Co Solicitors. Four witnesses attended on behalf of the respondent. They are referred to in this report as the transport administrator, the HR Manager, the Head of Finance and the Managing Director. The report also refers to the Warehouse Assistant, the IT worker, the transport supervisor, the Operations Manager and the Distribution Manager.
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, 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.
The complainant’s employment with the respondent began on the 4th August 1998 and came to an end on the 14th October 2016. He asserts that he was dismissed from his employment and that this dismissal was unfair. He also makes a minimum notice claim. The respondent denies the claims. The complainant was in receipt of a salary of €46,400 at the time of his dismissal, but had separately agreed a change role on a new annual salary of €40,000.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent outlined that this matter arose from a confrontation between two staff members on the 25th August 2016 which was witnessed by both the transport administrator and the complainant. Following this incident, the Warehouse Assistant received a verbal warning. As part of this process, the transport administrator drafted a witness statement and read it out to the complainant. The complainant later asked her to change her statement. There were differences in the statements provided by the transport administrator and the complainant about the incident. The statement of the transport administrator refers to “over here” and “a string of expletives”. The complainant’s statement does not refer to the words “I will not be spoken to that manner” and that the Warehouse Assistant had used a string of expletives. It was submitted that the complainant’s statement supports the Warehouse Assistant. It had been the complainant who suggested his demotion to the supervisor role.
Giving evidence about the incident, the transport administrator observed the Warehouse Assistant come into the office and ask the complainant for the following day off. The IT worker, then charged into the office and pointed his finger at the Warehouse Assistant, saying “what’s your name?” The Warehouse Assistant replied that he would not be spoken to like that and in that manner from over there.’ He also asked for the IT worker’s name. The Warehouse Assistant said ‘f*** off out of my face’. The IT worker asked the transport administrator for the Warehouse Assistant’s name, and she replied that she did not want to get involved. She was not aware what had occurred before between them.
The transport administrator said that she later received a phone call from the HR Manager, who said that she had to follow up on the incident and to get the transport administrator involved. The IT worker had made a complaint. She emailed the HR Manager at 11.26am. She read out the text of the email to the complainant, and he said that this was not what he had heard. At around 3 or 3.30pm, the complainant came into the office and sat down in the chair opposite her. He said to her that she should go to the Distribution Manager to change her statement to say that she could not hear what words were used as there was so much shouting going on. The complainant told her that the Warehouse Assistant could lose his job and then left the room. She felt that the comment undermined her and she felt frightened. She also felt uneasy and asked the Distribution Manager to join her every time the complainant entered the office, and told him of the incident with the complainant. She later spoke with the HR Manager and emailed her the following day. She felt undermined, intimidated and scared.
In cross-examination, it was put to the transport administrator that in her interview notes, she does not refer to asking the Distribution Manager to join her in the room. It was put to the transport administrator that this did not happen; she replied that she did not include it as it was then not relevant. It was put to the transport administrator that she had denied texting the complainant, but he had replied to say that he was there to support her; she acknowledged that the complainant had texted on the day of the incident. It was put to the transport administrator that the Distribution Manager was new to the job; she replied there had been problems between the Warehouse Assistant and the Distribution Manager. She started as a temp in 2015 and became full-time in August 2016, some two weeks before the incident. It was put to the transport administrator that she was asked in the interview notes whether she had texted the complainant; she acknowledged that she replied “no” as she had forgotten this. She agreed that the complainant was initially supportive. She described the office as a four-booth office located in the warehouse. She said that all the statements had been done at the same time and in the same office. She thought the complainant had written his statement in the office. It was put to the transport administrator that the handwritten note includes the written statement from the Warehouse Assistant and the complainant’s statement below; she replied that she may have been incorrect in saying that the complainant had written the statement in the office. She had seen the complainant use his phone. It was put to the transport administrator that there had been a conversation between them about the incident but that she had never read out the statement to the complainant; she replied that this was not true. It was put to the transport administrator that in his statement, the transport supervisor did not recall her reading out her statement; she replied that she did read out the statement. It was put to the transport administrator that her conversation in the afternoon with the complainant did not happen; she replied that she stands over her statement. It was put to the transport administrator that this was a fabrication and there had been no conversation with the complainant in the afternoon and that the complainant had not known of the contents of her statement; she replied that the complainant had been in the room and it had happened.
In further cross-examination, the transport administrator said that the notes were an accurate record. She asked whether it was relevant that she had said she had forgotten about the text at the time of the interview. She said that she had read her statement to both the transport administrator and the complainant. She had a good relationship with the complainant, who was charismatic and jokey. The comment in the appeal minutes where the complainant referred to a witch hunt was put to the transport administrator; she replied that the comment regarding knowing the complainant’s point of view was not directed at her.
The HR Manager gave evidence and said that she had been in the role for 11 years. Prior to the incident, there had been a previous incident between the Warehouse Assistant and another member of staff where the Warehouse Assistant had been abusive. The complainant had sought support from HR and she accompanied the complainant to meet a senior manager. She said to the complainant that the Warehouse Assistant was out of control and he replied that the Warehouse Assistant could lose his job. She said that this had been the Warehouse Assistant’s fault. She was shocked by the complainant’s sympathy for the Warehouse Assistant, especially as there had been issues in the past with him.
In cross-examination, the HR Manager accepted that the complainant had 18 years’ service in the warehouse and an unblemished disciplinary record. It was put to the HR Manager that the complainant was a loyal person; she said that the complainant liked to be liked, but had been struggling in the role. She accepted that he was loyal. It was put to the HR Manager that the complainant was no friend of the Warehouse Assistant, including when he had been a witness for the respondent in defending personal injury proceedings against the respondent taken by the Warehouse Assistant. It was put to the HR Manager that there had been an altercation in the Four Courts where the Warehouse Assistant had abused the complainant and that the Warehouse Assistant was a troublesome employee. The HR Manager replied that she thought that the complainant had originally found the Warehouse Assistant a job. It was put to the HR Manager that the statement a year before had been a throw-away comment; she replied that she was shocked at the complainant’s comment at this time. It was put to the HR Manager that the complainant was not letting the Warehouse Assistant away with it; she replied that he was and she was surprised. She thought that the complainant had said the same thing to her a year before as he had to the transport administrator on the 25th August 2016. There had been no formal complaint against the Warehouse Assistant so nothing happened. It was put to the HR Manager that there had been a conversation between the complainant and the newly appointed Distribution Manager, where the complainant declined a new role. She replied that the complainant had had a conversation with the Operations Manager where the complainant had said he was not warehouse manager.
In re-direction, the HR Manager said that the complainant had raised on numerous occasions that he wanted to change roles. He had said that he was not the warehouse manager. They had discussed salary for the new, less senior role.
The Head of Finance outlined that he issued the letter of dismissal on the 22nd September 2016 and confirmed that he had only spoken to the complainant. In cross-examination, the Head of Finance confirmed that he had not spoken to the transport administrator as he had her comprehensive statement. He could not understand why the transport administrator would make it up. If there were disparities in her statement such as whether she had read out the statement or sent the text, they were not material. The key issue was whether the conversation at happened at all. The Head of Finance was asked that as complainant’s statement was also clear and comprehensive, why had he only spoken to the complainant. It was put to the Head of Finance that he had not spoken to the transport administrator despite the disparities; he replied that he had no reason to disbelieve her statement. It was put to the Head of Finance that he simply believed the transport administrator’s statement; he replied that he had spoken to the investigator in the presence of the HR Manager. He wanted clarification of the statements, for example that of the transport administrator. He was asking whether more had been said then was recorded. It was put to the Head of Finance that he had wanted the complainant to prove a negative; he replied that he concluded that the complainant was seeking to protect colleagues and could not explain why the transport administrator would put herself through this. It was put to the Head of Finance that the complainant, as a loyal employee, should have been given the benefit of the doubt. The Head of Finance said that he had not known that the complainant had been a witness for the respondent in personal injury proceedings taken by the Warehouse Assistant. He had spoken with the Managing Director prior to making the decision to dismiss the complainant. He had told the Managing Director that he was going to dismiss the complainant and he replied “if that’s your decision.” The Head of Finance said that somebody had told him about the changed role but he did not know who. It may have been through HR as an alternative to dismissal. He said that it was not acceptable to keep the complainant as a manager. The Head of Finance was asked what consideration had been given to alternatives such as demotion or warning; he replied that his decision had been to dismiss the complainant. He said that it was not possible to pursue mediation because of what the transport administrator had said in her statement.
In further cross-examination, the Head of Finance said that he had asked the investigator about the statement made by the transport administrator, in particular the text messages as he was confused. He asked when they had been sent. He confirmed that he was aware of the inconsistencies in the initial statement of the transport administrator and that the inconsistencies had led to his confusion. He had not been aware of the differences between the complainant and the transport administrator about where the statements were recorded and did not think that this was relevant. He had not asked the investigator who she had believed.
The Managing Director gave evidence. He heard the complainant’s appeal and that they had witnesses available to participate in the appeal, including the complainant, the transport administrator and the transport supervisor. In cross-examination, the Managing Director confirmed that he was aware of the conversation between the complainant and the Operations Manager regarding his standing down. He had not been aware of the status of these discussions. The Head of Finance had advised him of his decision to dismiss the complainant on the grounds of gross misconduct. The Managing Director only acknowledged this and did not tell the Head of Finance about his discussions with the Operations Manager about the complainant’s changed role. The inconsistencies raised by the complainant regarding the transport administrator’s statement only related to the text messages. He confirmed he received all the documentation on hearing the appeal and was aware of other inconsistencies. This included the statement issue and he knew why the transport administrator could have thought that the complainant had written the statement in the office. He said that the appeal hearing was to give both he and the complainant the opportunity to ask questions of the transport administrator. It was put to the Managing Director that no benefit of the doubt was given to the complainant; he replied that there was no witness to support either party and he believed that the respondent had looked at all the information. The complainant only asked for the transport administrator to come into the appeal hearing and not the other witnesses. It was his decision to dismiss the complainant and to offer an alternative role, as a reflection of loyalty.
In closing comments, the respondent submitted that fair procedures had been applied. The question was whether the employer was entitled to conclude that the gross misconduct had occurred. An employer is entitled to prefer one witness’s evidence over another. While this was not a criminal trial, it was like a jury preferring one person’s evidence over another. There had been a breach of trust and confidence by the complainant and on the balance of probabilities, the respondent was entitled to make the finding of gross misconduct. It was submitted that the offer of another job was relevant when considering mitigation.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that he worked for the respondent for 18 years and had initially looked after five colleagues as warehouse manager. He moved warehouse after his employer was bought over by the respondent. He did various roles and the Operations Manager came to be the warehouse manager. The complainant had 12 reports and later took on a warehouse manager role at a named location for a period of eight months, where he had 22 reports. He had been a witness in the personal injury proceedings, which came to court in 2015 and caught a senior member of staff pilfering. He described the Warehouse Assistant as a thorn in the side and while he helped him, their relationship was that of work colleagues and not friends. The complainant said that he tried to get on with everyone.
The complainant said that in June 2016, he had spoken with the Operations Manager on numerous occasions about his stress and said that he could not do his job any more. They had moved premises and six companies had been brought together. It was a difficult, stressful time and there were headaches across the board spread over the two warehouses. He and the Operations Manager had a conversation about the complainant moving jobs and the Operations Manager got a consultant to help with the logistics. The end result was that the complainant stayed put. He was aware that the new Distribution Manager coming in to the warehouse, but he did not know him. At the start, the Distribution Manager was finding his feet and they had an ‘alright’ relationship. The Distribution Manager asked the complainant into his office where he told the complainant that he was not the right fit. He commented that the complainant was fantastic with customers and suggested the complainant do a new role. The respondent had a much higher footfall on the retail end, about 90 a day. The Distribution Manager said that he would bring in his own staff and that he had been round the block. The complainant told the Distribution Manager what his salary was and that this was not a problem. At a later meeting, they discussed his salary again and the Distribution Manager offered €35,000. The complainant replied that he was working 7am to 7pm and that he was worth more. The Distribution Manager said he would come back to him. At the third meeting, in mid-August, the complainant accepted the offer of €40,000.
In respect of the incident of the 25th August 2016, the complainant said he had been in the office when the IT worker came in. The Warehouse Assistant was also in the office and the IT worker pointed at the Warehouse Assistant and said “what’s your name”. The Warehouse Assistant then left the room. The complainant went straight to the Distribution Manager and the Operations Manager about the incident. The Distribution Manager told him to go and get statements from those in the office. He did this, where the transport supervisor said he would not give one and the transport administrator said she would. The complainant said that he had taken many statements, sometimes three per week, on issues such as health and safety. The complainant brought the Warehouse Assistant into the office and as he is illiterate, wrote out the statement for him. A named colleague happened to be in the room. The complainant then added his statement and gave the page to Distribution Manager. Later that day, the complainant, the transport supervisor and the transport administrator had chit chat over the event. The transport administrator did not read out her statement and the complainant did not read it. This was the end of the complainant’s involvement in the investigation. The complainant denied asking the transport administrator to change her statement and commented that the office was a busy, public place. He was not sure whether he had said good bye to the transport administrator that day. He was not asked to do anything else regarding the incident. The Distribution Manager later said to the complainant that he should change his statement, but he did not know what he meant. He later reported this to HR. The complainant received a text message from the transport administrator on the 25th August 2016 to say that she did not want to be part of this witch hunt. He replied that he would be a support for her.
The complainant outlined that the transport supervisor had told him that there was something coming down the track from the statement made by the transport administrator. The first he officially knew was the day he was suspended. While the complainant was in the warehouse, the HR Manager and the Distribution Manager handed him a letter to inform him of his suspension. Disciplinary matters usually took place in a quieter room. The complainant said that he had not had a private meeting with the transport administrator and he consistently denied this allegation. In respect of the offer of a new job, the complainant described this as terrible as the finding of gross misconduct was hard to take. He felt that he had earned the front of house role. He had not been treated fairly and that the respondent had believed someone over him, especially someone new to the company.
The complainant outlined that he has been out of work since October 2016 and commenced looking for employment in November. He had to sign on and there was controversy over the circumstances of his dismissal. He initially looked for warehouse manager roles and later for warehouse operator roles. He outlined that he has obtained a new job at a named location as warehouse operator, on a salary of €22,000 per year.
In cross-examination, the complainant said when he was handed the letter of suspension by the HR Manager, he asked what this was for, and she replied “you know”. It was put to the complainant that he had been allowed to put his case at all stages; he said that he had not been allowed to do so by the Managing Director. The differences in the statements were put to the complainant, including his omission of the words “I will not be spoken to like that” and a reference to a string of expletives; the complainant said that he only heard “what’s his name” and he did not hear the other words. The complainant did not agree that the transport administrator had read out her statement to him. It was put to the complainant that on hearing her statement, he now had a motivation to get her to change her statement; the complainant did not agree with this. The complainant was asked whether someone else should have helped the Warehouse Assistant with his statement; he replied that he always did statements for warehouse staff. He was asked what the transport administrator’s motivation could be; he replied that he did not know and denied that he had said the things attributed to him. The complainant accepted if what the transport administrator had said in her statement was true that it was a serious matter and that someone should be disciplined for it. The complainant said that the Distribution Manager had asked whether this was all he had to say in the statement and did not ask him to change it. The complainant described the incident as taking place at 3 or 3.30pm, at a time when it was busy with drivers returning.
In closing comments, the complainant submitted that fair procedures had not been followed, for example the Head of Finance had consulted with someone about his decision. The disciplinary process had not established the veracity of the statement made by the transport administrator. Insufficient account had been taken of the complainant’s 18 years’ service. The respondent had preferred the transport administrator’s account despite the inconsistencies and the complainant had been asked to prove a negative. No consideration had been given to why the complainant would do as alleged. The past conversation with the HR Manager was irrelevant. The respondent had reached a finding of gross misconduct, yet made the offer of a new role. It was not realistic for the complainant to take up the role when the finding of gross misconduct had been made. The backdrop to this case was that the Distribution Manager wanted the complainant to move roles.
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant’s dismissal stems from the events of the 25th August 2016. They first arose from a verbal confrontation between two members of staff, referred to above as the Warehouse Assistant and the IT worker. They both submitted statements following the incident. The statement submitted by the IT worker is more detailed and accuses the Warehouse Assistant of swearing at him. The statement of the Warehouse Assistant was transcribed by the complainant. It makes no reference to swearing. The complainant said that he was asked to take the statement by the Distribution Manager and that he regularly took statements from staff. The complainant refers to the Warehouse Assistant being illiterate and the respondent does not appear to dispute this. Three witnesses submitted statements to the respondent of what they saw and heard. They are short statements. The statement of the complainant and the Warehouse Supervisor differ from that of the transport administrator as only the latter statement refers to the Warehouse Assistant swearing in an aggressive manner, corroborating the statement of the IT worker. The respondent outlined that the Warehouse Assistant received a warning following its investigation of the morning incident.
The events leading to the complainant’s dismissal arise from the allegation made by the transport administrator that the complainant approached her at around 3.30pm on the afternoon of the 25th August 2016 to try to persuade her to change her statement. She outlines that this made her very upset and concerned. The complainant flatly denies that this took place. Ultimately, the respondent was satisfied that the allegation was true and that it constituted gross misconduct. There was controversy regarding what the complainant described as inconsistencies and the respondent as misunderstandings. They include whether there was an inconsistency in the statement of the transport administrator regarding whether she had texted the complainant and whether he had replied indicating his support for her. There was also a conflict in evidence as to whether the transport administrator read out her statement to the complainant and the transport supervisor, or whether they had only chatted about the earlier incident. This is significant as the complainant denies knowing the contents of the statement submitted by the transport administrator.
At the heart of this case is the sharp conflict of fact regarding the events of the afternoon of the 25th August 2016. The transport administrator asserts that the complainant approached her in a 1-1 meeting to ask her to change her statement. The complainant denies this and asserts that there was no such meeting. Both the transport administrator and the complainant gave their conflicting accounts at the adjudication, subject to cross-examination. It goes without saying that it is not for the adjudication to choose between one or other of the conflicting accounts. Its role is to assess whether the respondent had reasonable grounds to conclude that the act of gross misconduct occurred.
The respondent faced a predicament in addressing two such conflicting accounts. The question of whether the respondent had reasonable grounds for the subsequent dismissal stem from its assessment of the evidence before it, including the inferences it made from the evidence and what corroboration it relied upon. It is clear from the investigation report and the evidence of the respondent witnesses that the respondent placed great significance on the corroboration of a conversation between the complainant and the HR Manager a year before where the complainant had expressed a concern that the Warehouse Assistant might lose his job. The respondent also places weight on the inference drawn from what motivation could the transport administrator have to make a false allegation against the complainant. The investigation report refers to both the corroboration of the HR Manager from the year before and the inference drawn from a lack of motive. The disciplinary outcome letter refers only to a lack of motive on the part of the transport administrator. Following the appeal hearing, the Managing Director confirmed the disciplinary outcome.
Where an employer faces such conflicting accounts of an event, unless there is something implausible about one statement, it is necessary to seek out corroboration of one or the other account to reach the position where it has reasonable grounds. In some cases, this will involve witness statements or objective sources such as text messages. In this case, the respondent relied on corroboration provided in an unrelated and earlier statement made by the complainant about the Warehouse Assistant. This was unsatisfactory because the statement was made so long before the 25th August 2016 and related to an entirely different matter. Furthermore, the respondent did not consider corroboration that went the other way, for example the evidence presented at the adjudication (and not contradicted by the respondent) that the complainant had given evidence for the respondent in High Court PI proceedings against the Warehouse Assistant.
As outlined above, it is not my role to prefer one account over the other. The version of events presented by the transport administrator could be correct. After all, the complainant had texted to offer his support (in reply to her text) and perhaps his calling to the office at 3.30pm was giving this support. The version of events presented by the complainant could be correct. He gathered and submitted statements regarding the morning confrontation and the disciplinary investigation involving the Warehouse Assistant was dealt with in due course.
As submitted by the complainant, the respondent, in particular at the disciplinary and appeal stages, asked the complainant to prove a negative, i.e. that the conversation had not taken place. It required the complainant to show that the transport administrator had a motive to make an untrue allegation. Where he could not do so, it concluded that the transport administrator lacked any such motive and that it was entitled to take the allegation as true. While it was significant that the transport administrator was new to the company and gave an internally coherent account of the conversation with the complainant, it has not demonstrated that the lack of a motive was reasonable grounds to conclude that the event of gross misconduct occurred. I reach this finding for the following reasons. There was significant conflict between the transport supervisor and the transport administrator over whether she had read out her statement at the earlier meeting. Like much of what that transport supervisor is reported as saying, he was equivocal about his recollection of events and careful not to contradict the evidence of any other witness. Moreover, I note that the respondent did not interview other potential witnesses in the warehouse to see whether they saw the conversation between the transportation administrator and the complainant, or whether they observed either of them around the warehouse between 3 and 3.30pm. This is a busy warehouse at a busy time of day. This points to an unresolved inconsistency and incomplete evidence before the respondent and following which it was not reasonable for take the lack of motivation as grounds to accept the allegation as true.
I repeat that my role is not to make findings whether the allegation was true or not true. In assessing the motive of the transport administrator, it fell on the respondent to consider and to discount other motives. This arises as it did not have other evidence to corroborate one version over the other and due to the inconsistencies. One can conceive other possible motives (for example, conceivably, a mistaken account that could not be resiled from or, conceivably, an instruction from a senior manager). Before concluding that the lack of a motive, on its own, was reasonable grounds for dismissal, the respondent should have considered other possible motives and this arises because of the inconsistencies and the lack of corroboration.
For the reasons outlined above, the respondent’s dismissal of the complainant was unfair. In respect of the warehouse assistant role, I note that the respondent was not proposing this as a demotion of the complainant, but that he would be dismissed as warehouse manager on grounds of gross misconduct. It proposed that he be re-employed in the warehouse assistant role, receiving about half his salary. I note that complainant’s concerns that the dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct would remain in place. I agree that this should not been taken in assessing mitigation. It may have been different had the respondent proposed demotion instead of dismissal as the outcome of the disciplinary process.
In respect of mitigation, the complainant submits documentary evidence of seeking 45 roles as warehouse manager or warehouse operative. He found alternative employment in April 2017 as warehouse operator on a salary of €22,000 per year. The complainant is entitled to recover for the financial loss he incurred between the date of dismissal and obtaining new employment. This is a period of 26 weeks. The complainant was on salary of €46,400. While he had agreed to move to a front-of-house role on a salary of €40,000, this had not been implemented by the time of his dismissal. Taking his salary at €46,400, his loss is €23,200. He is also entitled to recover for ongoing loss of salary. In assessing this, I note that the complainant has a great deal of experience, including management experience, in the logistics sector. This experience and his acknowledged affable personality means that he is likely to progress in this new role, or to find a more senior role. I, therefore, award an additional €10,000 for ongoing loss of salary. The sum of these two amounts is €33,200.
In respect of the complaint made pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, I find that the complaint is well-founded. I find that the respondent has not demonstrated that the complainant committed an act of misconduct to disentitle him to statutory notice. The complainant was employed by the respondent for 18 years, and it follows that he is entitled to the statutory notice period of eight weeks. Taking his salary at €46,400 per annum, the redress is €7,138.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 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.
Pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act, I find that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant €33,200 as redress for the unfair dismissal.
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find that the complainant made pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €7,138.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Unfair Dismissals Act
Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act