ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010489
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Painter and Decorator | Painting and Decorating services |
Representatives | Complainant’s father | Did not attend |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00013839-001 | 10/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
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 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.
Background:
The complainant states that he was unfairly dismissed. He has less than 12 months’ service. The complainant commenced employment with the respondent as a painter and decorator on 25/4/17. He worked a 40-hour week, earning €650 gross per week The respondent asked him to continue to work for him as a subcontractor. The complainant refused to accept this offer. The respondent failed to pay him wages due on 11/8/17 August. He was dismissed by text on 12/8/17. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 10/9/17. He is seeking compensation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant advises that he is a competent painter and decorator. He holds a Level 6 Higher Level Diploma in Painting and Decorating. He a has a good reference from a previous employer. The respondent had never criticised his work. When the respondent decided to reduce his painting, and decorating team in late July from for 6 to 2, he retained the complainant and a colleague. The complainant states that the respondent made unreasonable demands to finish a four-bedroomed house with a large living room, hall, stairs, landing, large kitchen and utility room in one week which the complainant advises is an impossibility for one person. The respondent wanted him to work more quickly. On Monday 31/7/17 the respondent asked the complainant to continue to work for him as a sub-contractor. The complainant did not agree to same. The complainant was paid his weekly wage for week ending the 4th August. He received no wages for week ending 11th August. The complainant texted the respondent to enquire about his wages. The respondent advised that he was trying to set up an RCT for him with Revenue. The complainant stated to the respondent that he did not accept this change of status. He states that the respondent advised that he, the complainant, had ceased to work for him two weeks previously. The respondent and complainant exchanged texts, furnished to the hearing in which the respondent advised that the complainant’s way was a good way but was too slow. The respondent texted the complainant on the 12th August” Do your job or get out the door. You can’t do you your job so you are out the door. Good luck. I sent you your p45.” The complaint had no contract of employment, nor does the respondent to his knowledge have a disciplinary procedure. The complainant’s complaint form submitted to the WRC confirms that he gained alternative employment on the 23/8/17 and is earning €550 net per week. He incurred a lot of medical expenses due to the treatment of him by the respondent and the subsequent dismissal. He is seeking compensation for the unfair dismissal. He is also seeking recompense for the non-payment of 2 weeks’ wages (22-26th May and 4-11th August), which he identified in his submission. His complaint form claims that he received no holiday payment accruing for the period 25/4/17-12/8/17. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend. The respondent submitted no written evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 13 of The Industrial Relations Act, 1969 allows me to make a recommendation as to the manner of the complainant’s dismissal. The uncontested evidence of the complainant is that he was summarily dismissed through a text message. There was a total absence of fair procedure, no advance notice, no right of representation, no opportunity provided to argue against the dismissal, no right of appeal. I find that the dismissal was unfair. Compensation is the redress sought. I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant 3 weeks’ salary which amounts to €1950. In addition, I recommend that the respondent pay the complainant the sum of €650 (5 days leave) in relation to non-payment of leave, plus the sum of €1300 for the weeks (cited above) for which no wages were paid subject to lawful deductions. The total sum recommended is therefore €3,900. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. I recommend that the respondent should pay him €1,950. I find that the complainant was not provided with annual leave. I recommend that the respondent should pay him €650. I find that the complainant had two weeks’ wages withheld from him. I recommend that the respondent should pay him €1,300. The total sum recommended is €3,900.
|
Dated: 1st May 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Industrial relations Act; unfair dismissal; absence of any fair procedure; uncontested evidence; non-payment for holiday periods; non- payment of wages. |