ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019202
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A General Manager | A Hotel |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00025001-001 | 14/01/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Procedure:
In accordance with 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 Worker was employed by the Employer from 15th of February 2018 and was let go with one months’ notice on 3rd of July 2018. The Worker was not notified on 3rd of July that he was being let go without any warning or procedures and without any reason being provided for his dismissal. I proceeded to a hearing of this matter on 25th of November 2019. Both parties were in attendance at the hearing. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker submits that He was dismissed without notice or warning and no reason was given for his dismissal. No procedures were followed and there was no appeal allowed. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer submits The worker was aware that there were problems with his performance, and he had received warnings in this regard, He was notified on 3rd of July 2018 that he was being let go and he was paid one months wages in lieu of notice. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The role of the Adjudication Officer in IR referrals is to consider the grievances raised and if the employer acted reasonably and in line with its own procedures and the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000) and if the worker was treated fairly throughout the process. This Code sets out the general principles that should apply in the operation of disciplinary procedures and the promotion of best practice in giving effect to these procedures. The Code states that the procedures applied must comply with the general principle of natural justice and fair procedures and they include that: 1. the details of the allegations or complaints be put to the employee concerned; 2. the employee concerned be given the opportunity to respond fully to any such allegations or complaints; 3. the employee concerned is given the opportunity to avail of representation; and 4. the employee concerned has the right to a fair and impartial determination of the issues being investigated, taking into account the allegations or complaints against him or her, the response of the employee concerned to them, any representations made by or on behalf of the employee concerned and any other relevant or appropriate evidence, factors or circumstances. The worker advised the hearing that he was employed by the employer as General Manager of hotel A from 15th of February 2018 to 3rd of July 2018 when he was dismissed with one months’ notice out any reason being given. The worker told the hearing that no procedures were followed, there was no warning or reason given for letting him go. The worker stated that he was told on the morning of the 3rd of July 2018 that Mr. A the owner of the hotel was ‘on the warpath’, he stated that he was given no notice of any meeting or warning and was dismissed that day. Witness for the employer Mr. A advised the hearing that they had hired the worker as General Manager of the hotel in February 2018, Mr. A advised the hearing that the worker was very impressive and that he had thought he would be well able to manage a small country hotel. Mr. A sated that the workers CV and references were top notch. Mr. A stated that the worker was hired to manage the daily running of the hotel. Mr. A stated that he and his business partner Mr. B very quickly realised that the worker was struggling. Mr, A stated that he had a number of conversations with the worker to try and ascertain what the problem was. Mr. A stated that he genuinely liked the worker and treated him well. Mr. A stated that he tried to reduce the workers responsibilities when he realised that he couldn’t cope with the job and had to hand over some of his responsibilities to other staff members. Mr. A stated that he had to help him to run the hotel. Mr. A stated that the worker was disorganised and that this was raised as an issue coming up to Easter 2018 when the worker had made no plans for bringing in customers on Good Friday. The employer stated that he raised this in an email dated 28th of March (copy submitted). Mr, A stated that there were a number of incidents and issues involving the worker which had the effect of causing reputational damage to the hotel he cited the following examples In April 2018 a patron of the hotel was locked out overnight and had to sleep in his car as the worker had not made sure that all residents were in before locking up or should have given them a key to the front door, On another occasion the worker had called the guards on a customer where he had suspected the customer had been trying to pass off fake notes, it turned out the notes were perfectly legitimate. There was a road traffic incident between the worker and a local patron of the hotel and where the worker had caused a scene in the hotel car park again bringing the hotel into disrepute. Mr. A stated that the worker was subject to a six-month probation period and that he was warned that this could be extended. Mr A stated that he worker was warned of this at least a month in advance. Mr. A stated that the worker had received verbal warnings in respect of his performance and that here was a meeting in April 2018 to discuss his performance, no record of this meeting was available. Mr. A acknowledged that the worker was not issued with any formal written warnings. Mr. A sated that the final straw came in June 2018 when the worker made an error in the wage calculations and incorrectly overpaid all staff. Mr. A stated that the worker didn’t even apologise for this error and that staff had to be asked to repay the overpayment. Mr. A advised the hearing that the hotel had also been receiving negative reviews on Trip Advisor which the worker should have employer to as General Manager but which he had not done until he was told by Mr. A to respond. Mr. A stated that it had become clear that the worker was unable to handle the running of the hotel and Mr. A himself had to help him to run the hotel while paying a lot of money to a General Manager to do the job. Mr. A stated that he had to dismiss the worker due to performance issues as he wasn’t doing his job properly and that he had paid him a full months wages on his dismissal. The worker disputes this account and states that he received no warning and that no disciplinary procedure was followed by the employer. The worker stated that he did not have full autonomy to run the hotel as Mr. A was also involved in running the hotel himself. The worker stated that there was also another General Manager in situ whom the worker had been told by Mr. A was not fit to run the hotel and who would be moving on to another of the employers hotels. The worker stated that the other General Manager did his own thing and would not take direction form the worker making his job very difficult. The worker also advised the hearing that it was the other General Manager who was on duty on the night the guest was locked out. The worker advised the haring that no reason was given for his dismissal and when he asked Mr. A why he was being let go he told him that he didn’t have to give a reason. The worker stated that he thought he was doing a good job and that the employer had brought him out for lunch one day and said that he was happy with his performance but that there was a lot to be done. The worker told the hearing that he had worked very hard at the hotel to make it work. The worker stated that he did not have full autonomy and was not allowed to do his job properly as the owner Mr. A interfered in his managing of the hotel and the other General Manager also interfered making it a lot harder for him to run the hotel successfully. The worker stated that he was not notified of the meeting which resulted in his dismissal and that he had received no warnings and that no procedure was followed. The employer has submitted that informal verbal warnings were issued. The employer also advised the hearing that the worker was well aware that there were issues with his performance and that these were raised with him in emails in March April and June 2018. I am satisfied that these emails outline tasks to be done or areas where specific actions are being directed but they do not amount to official warnings of performance issues. I am also satisfied that he worker was not put on notice of the meeting of 3rd of July 2018 nor was he allowed to be accompanied to that meeting. In addition, I am satisfied that the worker was not on notice that he was at risk of being dismissed. The employer provided a copy of its Company handbook to the Commission. This Handbook sets out the disciplinary rules and procedures. The disciplinary procedure sets out the various stages of the Disciplinary procedure and also sets out the procedure to be followed in cases of dismissal following a series of warnings one verbal and two written warnings. It also sets out what happens in cases where an employee is subjected to summary dismissal following gross misconduct. Having considered the totality of the evidence adduced here I am satisfied that the employer in this case failed to follow its own disciplinary procedures and also failed to comply with fair procedures and natural justice before dismissing the worker. In the circumstances, I find that the Worker was unfairly dismissed by the Employer and accordingly I recommend in favour of the worker. I note that the employer paid the worker one month’s wages in lieu of notice on the date of his dismissal, in addition the Worker advised the hearing that he secured another job on the 3rd of September 2018. In making my recommendation I am taking into consideration the totality of the evidence adduced and all of the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I recommend that the employer pay the worker the sum of €3,500 in compensation. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend in favour of the worker. I recommend that the employer pay the worker the sum of €3,500 in compensation. |
Dated: 17th April 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|