ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010129
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Construction Company |
Representatives | N\A | N\A |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00013222-001 | 22/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerard McMahon
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint\dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.
Background:
The worker commenced employment with the respondent on the 29th September, 2016. His contract of employment placed him on a 3 month probationary period, after which he was informed that he was to be retained. On the 17th February, 2017 the Managing Director dismissed him. The worker secured employment with another construction company one month later. The case was adjudicated on (ADJ-00008644), but re-submitted (with the appropriate extension granted) and all appropriate details correctly entered. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The worker commenced employment with the respondent on the 29th September, 2016. His contract of employment placed him on a three month probationary period. After the three months he was informed that he was being kept on. He continued to carry out his duties, until, out of the blue he was called into the office on the 17th February, 2017 by one of the Managing Directors. The MD said “I don’t think you like your job here so we have decided to let you go” He said he would pay him what he was owed and one further week, as a form of compensation. This was the workers first job since leaving college. He was so shocked that he couldn’t think of anything to say. He just packed up his things and left.
The worker secured employment with another construction company one month later. His annual pay is € 2,000 more than with the respondent. He is happy there and is getting on very well. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No Appearance |
Findings and Conclusions:
In line with ADJ-00008644, the worker in this matter, following a probationary period was kept on in employment. He had an excellent disciplinary record. Without notice or warning he was called into the office of the Managing Director on the 17th February, 2017 and was dismissed. The worker’s contract of employment clearly sets out a disciplinary procedure. There was no attempt by the respondent to follow it. The complainant was not given an opportunity to state his case, he was not told the reasons that led the respondent to form the opinion he wasn’t happy there. He was not given a right of appeal. It is on that basis that I find he was unfairly dismissed. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I recommend that the respondent pay to the claimant the sum of €2,000.00 within 42 days. |
Dated: 4th April 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerard McMahon
Key Words:
Dismissal; Probation |