ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008821
Parties:
| Worker | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A bus driver | A bus operator |
Representatives | SIPTU | None |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00011457-001 | 22 May 2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13 October 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
At the outset of the adjudication, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue of the adjudication. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. Having taken these steps, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.
In accordance with section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Summary of the Worker’s Case:
The worker was employed by the respondent between the 29th March 2016 and the 16th March 2017. He was paid €500 per week gross. He was dismissed by the respondent without being able to appeal this decision. He was entitled to appeal this decision according to the employee handbook. The respondent had also acted unfairly in adding five additional “infractions” to the letter of dismissal that were not part of the issues raised in advance of the disciplinary process. This was a flawed process that led to a flawed outcome. The worker relied on Kirwan v Dunnes Stores that an employee is entitled to fair procedures and there had been a breach in the instant case of S.I. 146/2000.
In respect of the grounds relied on by the respondent, the worker outlined that four occurred after an incident on a particular road. The incident took place on the 12th December 2016 and the respondent sent a text message to drivers the following day. He acknowledged that one other incident took place and this had been dealt with by a verbal warning. The other incidents set out by the respondent were fake. He outlined that in the one incident he was disciplined for, he did a U-turn but did not repeat this manoeuvre again.
The worker outlined that after his dismissal, he went on holiday and then obtained new employment seven weeks before this adjudication. This was as a truck driver and since his last employment, he had worked in another bus driver role.
The worker said that he was unable to rebut the allegations contained in the respondent’s letter of the 7th March 2017. The worker had the right of appeal and this was an important tenet of fair procedures. The respondent accumulated allegations and put them to the worker as part of his dismissal. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is a dispute referred under the Industrial Relations Acts. The worker states that his dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. I find that the worker’s case is well founded as he was not able to avail of the respondent’s procedures to challenge adverse findings made against him. He should have been granted the facility of challenging each allegation and of appeal. The worker sought alternative employment after his dismissal. Given that this is an industrial relations referral, I recommend redress to be paid by the respondent to the worker of €2,500. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA-00011457 I recommend that the respondent pay to the worker redress of €2,500 for the worker’s unfair dismissal. |
Dated: 6th June, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Dismissal / Industrial Relations Act |