ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00037672
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Customer Support Worker | Business Process Outsourcing and Professional Services company |
Representatives | Self-represented | Mr. Jason Murray BL, instructed by Mr. Christopher Ryan, DAC Beachcroft |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
s. 13 Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) | CA-00049025 | 05/03/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Lefre de Burgh
Date of Hearing: 22/09/2022
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) 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 information relevant to the dispute.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359 of 2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Worker worked for the Employer as a Customer Service Representative from October 2021 to February 2022, up until his dismissal by the Employer. The Worker’s position is that he was unfairly dismissed. He feels very aggrieved by the loss of his job. He describes how the Employer treated him as ‘despicable’ and ‘without merit’ and says that he should never have been fired from his employment. He submits that an employer who wishes to dismiss an employee is required to issue a series of warnings first (verbal, written) and he never received any such warnings. He cites a bereavement as well as some other personal circumstances (including a fire in the apartment complex in which he resides) as heavily impacting him, during the time of his employment. He quoted the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, in his final comments to the Adjudication Officer. [For clarity, this case was taken under the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as the Worker had less than 12 months’ service.] The Employer’s position is that the Worker was dismissed while on probation, for an absenteeism rate of 55%. The Employer emphasises that this was ‘not a disciplinary matter’, that it was ‘not a matter in relation to the quality of [the Worker’s] work when he was there’ but rather that he failed his probation due to an exceptionally high rate of absenteeism. While cognisant that this is an Industrial Relations investigation, the Employer cites the Court of Appeal in O’Donovan v Over-C Technology Ltd. & Anor [2021] IECA 37 and its approach in relation to the dismissal of employees while on probation. Specifically, the Employer submits that an employer is entitled to terminate the employment of an employee on probation for any reason or none, subject to the terms of the contract of employment, in circumstances where there is no allegation of misconduct. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The Worker submits that prior to starting the job of Customer Service Representative for the Employer, he had suffered a bereavement at the end of September 2021: A relative who was a father figure in his life, died from Coronavirus in London. The Worker submits that the bereavement took a real toll on him. The Worker submits that he has never been dismissed from any employment he ever held, and that during the period of his employment, in addition to the bereavement, he also suffered a lot of personal disruption in his life, including a fire which occurred in his apartment complex in an apartment on a lower floor to where the Worker resides, and which left him ‘severely scared and traumatised.’ The Worker submits that when he started working for the Employer, there were a lot of staffing disruptions with middle management in the period between October 2021 and January 2022, and that his duties within the company were changing all the time. The Worker submits that under employment law, when an employer wants to fire an employee, the employer is meant to issue verbal and written warnings before an employee can be dismissed, and that he had never received such warnings. The Worker submits that ‘the whole prime facia case of the [Employer] is without merit’ and that the Employer ‘should never have fired him.’ The Worker submits that ‘the whole manner in which management treated me is despicable and again without merit, which has left me now depended on medication to carry out my daily functions.’ At the hearing, the Worker outlined that he was a Customer Service Representative from October 2021 to February 2022 for the Employer. He stated that he suffered a very significant bereavement prior to taking up his employment with the Employer, and that his deceased relative (to whom he was particularly close for a whole range of personal reasons) had died in England, from Coronavirus. He stated that when he started his new job with the Employer, he flagged his situation to the Employer (to the internal trainer, at the start of his employment). He said that he had outlined that he would need to travel to England to attend the funeral once he had notification of the date of the funeral. The Worker explained that in England, unlike in Ireland, there is often a gap of weeks between a death and the funeral, and that the volume of deaths as a result of Coronavirus further exacerbated that situation. He stated that he was on bereavement leave from the Employer. He said that once the initial training was completed, his line manager was (AM) after that, for a while, and that in his time there, there were a few changes of manager. He said that (AM) was very supportive of him, was aware of his personal circumstances, had ‘an open-door policy’ and that ‘it was a case of “anything you need.”’ He said that he felt when she left, that he had ‘lost a confidant.’ He said that during his period of employment, he had a lot of personal disruption in his life, that he was grieving very heavily, which interrupted his day-to-day functioning. He said that the bereavement brought on PTSD. Then, there was a fire in the apartment two floors below him, in his apartment complex. He said that things ‘really justspiralled out of control.’ The Worker said that (LT) wrote to him by registered post, asking him to make contact, which he did. The Worker said that a Microsoft Teams meeting took place on 05/02/2022, at which he was told that ‘[his] services were no longer required.’ He said that eight (8) days were approved for bereavement leave, that he was on certified sick leave, that for two (2) months during the four months, he was at work and on bereavement leave and sick leave ‘on and off.’ The Adjudication Officer at the hearing asked the Worker about the absentee rate, which the Employer identified as being 55%. The Worker described himself as being ‘perplexed’ and said that he couldn’t ‘understand the reasoning.’ He said that he had no legal representation, that the Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC) had a long queue. He described the position of the Employer, as set out in correspondence and submissions, as ‘laughable’ and ‘worrying’ and expressed the view that the employer had shown him ‘no courtesy.’ The Adjudication Officer enquired as to whether the Employer had conducted any Return-to-Work meetings, between October and December. The Worker was uncertain but said that there were two (2) Return to Work meetings with his line manager (AM) that he could definitely remember. The Worker submitted that he was ‘a fit and healthy forty-year-old man’ prior to the bereavement, which he said ‘brought on disruption’ in his life. He said that ‘we all have our bad days’ and that ‘some people can deal with what life throws at them and some people can’t.’ He submitted that his GP told him that ‘when someone close to anyone dies, it can cause PTSD.’ In response to an enquiry from the Adjudication Officer at the hearing as to what he was seeking, the Worker said that he was seeking to be re-instated into his old job. He said that he ‘loved the time that [he] was working there’ that he a ‘great rapport’ with his colleagues and enjoyed the ‘[Microsoft] Teams chats’, that the company was a ‘good brand’ but that ‘events spiralled out of control.’ At the hearing, the Worker of his own volition, undertook to engage with the Employer and return their equipment to them. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
Mr Murray BL for the Employer He first clarified that the chain of command was as follows: (GD) was the Operations Manager and (LT) who terminated the Worker’s employment, was the Worker’s manager’s manager. Counsel for the Employer stated that the documents ‘drastically differ’ from the Worker’s version of events as outlined at the hearing; and he emphasised that the Worker was absent more than half of the time he was at the company, and that that was the reason the Worker had failed his probation, not any other reason. He submitted it was not a disciplinary matter, and that it was not a question of the quality of the Worker’s work when he was in, but rather that he simply did not attend at work more than half the time. In response to a query from the Adjudication Officer at the hearing, Mr. Murray BL for the Employer submitted that the absenteeism comprised some sick leave (some certified; some uncertified) and significant amount of unauthorised leave (AWOL), that ‘overall the leave was uncertified’; and that the Worker’s own description, at the hearing, had been that he was ‘in and out’ of work, during that period. There was no record of any bereavement leave having been applied for or granted. The system the company used to record leave was ‘Peoplepoint’ and everything went through that system – there was no other way of applying for, or of the company recording, any form of leave. Mr. Murray BL submitted that the final meeting took place on February 7th, 2022, and that the Worker was paid in lieu of notice. He emphasised that there was a ‘suitability for employment’ clause (‘Throughout the probationary period an ongoing assessment will be made of your work performance and suitability for continued employment.’) in the terms of the Worker’s contract of employment with respect to the Employer’s assessment of a Worker on probation. He stated that the Worker was ‘not disqualified’, it was ‘not work-performance related’, that there was ‘no genuine trade dispute’ but rather the issue was the ‘level of absenteeism.’ It was accepted that the Worker worked fully remotely and was based in a different part of the country to where the Employer was based. He stated that the contract set out that during probation, either party could give ‘one (1) week’s notice of termination.’ He highlighted, the health declaration that the Worker had signed, when he took up the position (dated 12/10/2021) wherein in response to the question: ‘Do you consider yourself to have a disability?’, the Worker had ticked the box for ‘No.’ An explanation of the meaning of the word disability is offered at the bottom of the page stating: ‘Under the [UK] Equality Act 2010, a person is considered to have a disability and requires reasonable adjustments if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities.’ [For clarity, this is a document and definition drafted for the UK, not this jurisdiction.] Mr. Murray BL emphasised that the Employer was ‘not on notice of PTSD’, that ‘it had no knowledge of this’, that the company ‘was a stranger’ to many of the claims being made at the hearing by the Worker, including that the Worker had been on bereavement leave – there is no record of this at all, and, further, during that period the Worker was absent for eight (8) days which does not match the Employer’s policies on bereavement. The Employer’s case is that the Worker had simply not shown up for work when he was supposed to, and had not notified his manager, as required; it is the Employer’s position that it does not believe that the absences related to illness or disability, and it points to the health declaration signed and dated by the Worker, in that regard. It also points to an email received from a private gmail account which contained no contact information, purporting to be from an HSE social worker and which referred to the Worker having ‘disruption in his life’, in respect of there having been a fire in his apartment complex (but not his apartment) – there was no mention of illness, disability or PTSD. He further submitted that the Worker’s manager held a number of back-to-work interviews, that the contract of employment, in relation to probation, contains a clause which sets out the Worker would be assessed based on his ‘suitability for continued employment’ and therefore, the Employer was entitled to dismiss him as it did, and he was paid notice pay, as set out in his contract of employment. The Adjudication Officer enquired at the hearing as to whether the Worker had ever been referred to Occupational Health by the Employer and Mr. Murray BL for the Employer confirmed that he had not. He outlined that the Employer’s ‘sick policy’ was not a term of the Worker’s contract, but rather ‘a policy’, ‘a guidance note.’ The Adjudication Officer enquired at the hearing as to whether any disciplinary procedure had ever been triggered. The Employer submitted that, it had not. The Adjudication Officer enquired at the hearing as to whether a PIP (performance improvement plan) had ever been put in place. Again, the answer was ‘No.’ Mr. Murray BL for the Employer pointed to a policy the Employer had in respect of ‘reasonable adjustments’, which in this jurisdiction would be ‘reasonable accommodation’ and stated that the Worker had never sought anything under the policy. He pointed to a pattern of ‘extreme absenteeism’ commencing within the first month of employment and continuing throughout. He submitted that the factual pattern presented by the Worker simply ‘doesn’t add up’, that all absences, of every type, are recorded in one centralised system. He outlined that there is a process to take sick leave – that employees notify their line manager, provide a sick cert from their GP, keep their manager up to date as to when they are ready to return. No disciplinary process was instituted. The Worker’s employment was terminated on the basis of absence, not poor performance. The Employer submits, as per its written submissions: The Worker was employed by the Employer from 4th October 2021 until the termination of his employment on 7th February 2022. The Employer submits that the Worker was dismissed from his position in the company, during his probationary period, in line with the provisions of his contract of employment as a result of his attendance record, which was unsatisfactory. By letter dated 24th September 2021, the Worker was offered a position of Customer Service Advisor with a start date of 4th October 2021 and a salary of €22,692.80. It was a fully remote position, with the caveat that the Worker may be required by his manager to attend the Employer’s premises which are located in a different location in Ireland to where the Worker was based, when required. The contract of employment contained the following express clause: ‘Probation Period: Your employment will be subject to a six-month probation period during which both parties are required to give notice as stated in your summary statement. Throughout the probationary period an ongoing assessment will be made of your work performance and suitability for continued employment. If you have successfully completed your probation period, you will be confirmed in post. The Company may at any time during your probationary period, including any extended probationary period, terminate your employment and this does not prejudice the Company’s right to dismiss in accordance with the notice provisions during the probationary period, should this prove necessary.’ The Statement of Employment issued to the Worker by the Employer set out that during the first six months of employment “… both parties are required to give at least one week’s notice of termination.” The Worker completed a Health Declaration document, as part of the onboarding process. In it, the Worker has ticked the box to say that he was not aware of any medical condition or disorder which would prevent him from fulfilling his duties. The Worker has responded ‘No’, when asked, if there were any “… workplace adjustments or adaptations that may need consideration to assist you in the workplace”, in the same form. This document was electronically signed by the Worker on 12th October 2021. The Employer has a written policy entitled ‘Sick Leave Policy and Attendance Policy’, which expressly provides that: “Employees must report sickness absence by contacting their manager as soon as possible on the first day of absence and within the first half hour of the start of the working day. The employee must contact their manager themselves via a telephone call, text message or an email, unless there are extreme circumstances preventing this… Failure to notify correctly means the absence may be classed as unauthorised”. The Worker received access to this Policy on 24th September 2021. The Employer also has a written Probation Policy, to which the Worker received access to this Policy on 24th September 2021 also. It sets out that if an employee’s employment is terminated by reason of not passing probation, there is no right of appeal. The Worker’s Engagement with the Employer: The Worker commenced work with the Employer on 4th October 2021. The Worker’s record of extreme absenteeism started on 28th October 2021. The Employer operates an electronic recording system, and has compiled a list of the Worker’s absenteeism - in the 91 day period that the Worker was employed by the Employer, the Worker was absent from work for a total of 50 days and had an overall absenteeism rate of 55%. On 1st December 2021, the Worker’s Team Manager, (AM), conducted a Return-to-Work Interview with the Worker after an absence of seven days. It is noted that the Return-to-Work Interview document noted that (AM) “… confirmed with [The Worker] on [The Employer]’s Sick Leave Policy and Attendance Policy…”(AM) also “… explained the AWOL Process and the implications of being AWOL.” On 17th December 2021, after another period of seven (7) days absenteeism, (AM) conducted a further Return-to-Work Interview. Throughout the remainder of December and into January 2022, the Worker’s absenteeism continued at an extremely high rate. By letter dated 24th January 2022, the Operations Manager (GM) wrote to the Worker inviting him to a virtual Probationary Review Meeting, on Microsoft Teams (along with the meeting link). In response to (GM)’s correspondence, an email was received from a person alleging themselves to be an HSE social worker. However, the email was sent from a private gmail account and did not contain any contact number for the social worker and no indication that the email had originated from the HSE. In any event, the Worker attended the Probationary Review meeting on 7th February 2022, with the General Manager (LT) during which he was informed that he had not passed probation and that his employment with the Employer would be terminated. The Worker was expressly informed that he had not passed probation as a result of his level of absenteeism, failing to notify the company of his absence and failing to attend meetings. It is submitted that the Worker’s absenteeism is a matter of fact and he has never disputed the level, or record, of absenteeism. By letter dated 7th February 2022, (LT) wrote to the Worker informing him that his probation with the company had ended. He stated: ‘As you are aware, your employment with [The Employer] in the post of Customer Service Representative is subject to a probation during which your suitability for the post is assessed. I must now inform you that your employment with the company will be terminated today 7th February 2022 on the grounds of unsatisfactory attendance during the probationary period. You are entitled to one week’s notice, and this will be paid to you in lieu in the normal way and will include any accrued holiday pay to date.’ By email dated 8th February 2022, the Worker emailed (LT) stating that “If my dismissal isn’t rescinded, I will lodge proceedings against you and also go to the national media about [The Employer]’s work practices, which I won’t do likely [sic]”. By email dated 8th February 2022, (LT) responded to the Worker stating that the Worker’s “… termination on 7th February 2022 was based on the grounds of unsatisfactory attendance during the probation period, for which it stands, and is the final decision based on the standard probation criteria.” The Worker responded by email dated 8th February 2022 and stated, inter alia, “… if you want to run roughshod over employment law, then I will go ahead and … file the necessary paperwork”. The Worker further stated that “I will also report this to the national media for victimising employees suffering from grief.” The Employer submits that, as is the norm with former employees, the Employer attempted to have the Worker return company property. The normal procedure for the returning of company property is via collection by courier at the cost of the Employer. Despite a number of attempts to have the company property returned, the Employer submits that the Worker became evasive and began to make allegations relating to alleged unpaid wages. The Employer maintains that no wages and/or holiday payments are outstanding in relation to the Worker. A number of emails were exchanged between the Worker and (LT) in relation to the return of company property and the Worker’s issues relating to his wages, in which the Worker made some threats – variously, to hold the company’s property and sell it for cash ‘to help offset the lack of respect shown to me’, to report the Employer to the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment (DETE), and to ‘go to the national media.’ The Employer submits that the Worker was, at all material times, paid his wages as per his contract of employment and the Employer is a stranger as to the nature of the allegation made by the Worker. The Law: Albeit that the within matter concerns an alleged trade dispute, the [Employer] submits that the termination of the Worker’s employment was entirely fair, just and lawful. The Worker’s employment was terminated during his probationary period, in line with the provisions of his contract of employment in circumstances where he had an extraordinary amount of absenteeism. Without prejudice as to the fact that the Employer maintains there is no genuine trade dispute between the parties, the Employer submits that the Superior Courts have consistently stated that a contract of employment may be terminated for any reason, or no reason at all, providing that the termination of employment is permitted within the contract of employment. The Employer submits that in O’Donovan v Over-C Technology Ltd. & Anor [2021] IECA 37, the Court of Appeal were categorical on this point and cites extracts of the judgment, as set out: ‘There is no suggestion that the principles of natural justice must be applied where an employer terminates the employment contract of an employee on the grounds of poor performance. I do not accept that a court can imply a right to fair procedures – still less uphold a cause of action for the breach of such an alleged right – in relation to the assessment of an employee’s performance by an employer (other than for misconduct, which does not arise here) during the probationary period, as this would negate the whole purpose of a probationary period. This does not prevent an employer from including a term in the contract which confers rights to fair procedures on the employee, even during the period of probation. … If an employer has a contractual right – in this case a clear express right – to dismiss an employee on notice without giving any reason, the court cannot imply a term that the dismissal may only take place if fair procedures have been afforded to the employee, save where the employee is dismissed for misconduct. … In my view, Orr and Carroll remain good law. The principle established was specifically endorsed in Maha Lingham where Fennelly J. confirmed that a dismissal by reason of an allegation of misconduct attracts the right to fair procedures, whereas a dismissal in the absence of an allegation of improper conduct does not attract such a right.’ The Employer submits that the reason for the Worker’s dismissal is abundantly clear and set out within the letter of 7th February 2022 - the Worker did not pass his probationary period as a result of ‘… unsatisfactory attendance during the probation period.’ It is submitted that the Worker’s unsatisfactory attendance is simply a matter of fact, and as a result, the termination of his probationary period is fair, just and lawful and the facts relating to same do not give rise to a genuine trade dispute between the parties. The Employer submits that the Worker’s complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions, both oral and written, presented to me by the parties.
The Worker presented at the hearing as someone who was vulnerable. He outlined that he suffered a bereavement just prior to taking up the role with the Employer, and that it triggered psychological and mental health issues for him from which he said he did not suffer prior to being bereaved. Further, he has a social worker. At one point, the Worker was struggling at the hearing, and I offered him a break. He took issue with some of the points being raised by the Employer’s representative. I clarified that the questions were my own (not the Employer’s), that I had a duty to investigate and, of course, that no cross-examination formed any part of the process, as it is an Industrial Relations process. The Worker’s recall of events and dates is significantly at variance with what can be independently established, in particular in relation to the dates, reasons for, and length of absences from work, whether or not they were certified, and whether or not they were approved by the Employer.
I accept that the Worker may have had some informal conversations with colleagues in which he shared some of his personal circumstances, during this period.
The Employer, for its part, had an employee with a 55% absence rate, in a remote working position, who frequently simply did not log in for work and did not notify the Employer as to his absence or the reason for his absences. In response to a question from me, the Worker described himself as being ‘in and out’ of work over a two-month period.
It is somewhat surprising that the Employer did not trigger their own internal processes. The Employer has a comprehensive probation policy, which it does not appear to have implemented, as it submits that there was no difficulty with the standard of the Worker’s work when he was present; the difficulty was his level of absence. I think that is less than ideal – the fact that no disciplinary process, no active performance management, no performance improvement plan, no occupational health referral was deployed at any point is surprising given the scale and frequency of the absences.
The Employer’s probation policy sets out the following, in relation to sub-standard performance:
‘However, if performance falls below the expected standard, support can be provided through the following ways: · Ensuring the employee understands what is required of them and the objectives that have been set during the probation period · Having probation review meetings and discussing any issues monthly or more frequent i.e. weekly/bi-weekly · Offering training/upskilling/coaching’
The circumstances of this case really underscore the difficulties which can arise in terms of the day-to-day management of employees who are working fully remotely, especially if the Worker does not engage with their Employer. I accept that the Employer was not on notice of any PTSD (or any other disability), and that it has a designated system for the recording of all absences. I note that the failure to trigger any internal processes means that the Employer is not on notice of things it may have been on notice of, had those processes been instituted.
I note that two Return-to-Work interviews were conducted which were documented, and the Worker stated at the hearing that the EAP programme was drawn to his attention by his line manager (AM), which is also documented in the Employer’s documentation. The Worker said that he availed of the EAP service on one occasion before then employing the services of a private psychologist.
I accept the Employer’s position in relation to the following: 1. That it was largely a stranger to the claims made at the hearing by the Worker and was hearing many of them for the first time, at the hearing. 2. That it was not on notice of the bereavement. 3. That no bereavement leave was applied for or granted through the PeoplePoint system. 4. That the Worker was repeatedly absent from work when he should have been in attendance, and that this was largely uncertified and frequently unauthorised; that this took the form of the Worker simply not logging in and not being contactable, when he should have been working remotely. 5. That the Worker had an absentee rate of 55% - that he was absent 51 days in 90. 6. That the Employer was not on notice of any disability. 7. That the Worker filled in a form prior to taking up employment indicating that he did not perceive himself to have a disability.
My role is to examine whether the Employer behaved reasonably in its management of the Worker up to and including dismissal. Dismissing a Worker with a pattern of gross and repeated unauthorised absenteeism is reasonable. On balance, I also find that the dismissal is procedurally fair. While I am mindful of S.I. 146/2000 and its contents, I find that the dismissal is procedurally fair, and thus reasonable, on foot of the documentation supporting the two Return-to-Work meetings, signed and dated (01/12/2021 and 17/12/2021) by the Worker’s line manager (AM) which clearly outline that in addition to re-iterating the Employer’s policy to the Worker in relation to the requirement to notify any absences to the Duty Manager by telephone call, she also ‘explained the AWOL Process and the implications of being AWOL.’ This is at odds with the Worker’s assertion that he was ‘perplexed’ and that the probation meeting dismissing him came as a bolt from the blue.
Notwithstanding that this is an industrial relations investigation, the Employer points to the Court of Appeal decision in O’Donovan V Over-C Technology & Anor [2021] IECA 37 in relation to probationary dismissals, wherein it held that a probationary period is a time in which either party can decide, within the terms of the contract of employment, that the employment relationship is not working out, without triggering a full complement of due process and constitutionally protected natural justice rights, contingent on there being no misconduct – in that case, the issue was ‘poor performance’ - not misconduct. It is the Employer’s position that an employer can dismiss an employee on probation for any reason or none, subject to the terms of the employee’s contract of employment and contingent on there being no allegation of misconduct. I am troubled by the Employer’s proposition that gross and repeated unauthorised absences over a period of months do not constitute misconduct, and even more so by the prospect of an employer being able to circumvent the requirements of S.I. 146/2000 and/or equality law, by simply failing to trigger any of its own internal processes to manage such absences. It seems to me that there is a real risk of ‘moral hazard’ to that proposition, were O’Donovan V. Over-C Technology & Anor [2021] IECA 37 to be interpreted and applied in that way. Furthermore, the Employer was at pains to emphasise that there was no performance issue in terms of the quality of the Worker’s work, when present.
In the instant case, however, I find that the Return-to-Work meetings where the issue of ‘AWOL’ absences was clearly addressed (and documented) twice by the Worker’s line manager with the Worker, mean that the Worker who was working fully remotely, who had an absence rate of 55% and who was on probation, was specifically on notice of the issue with respect to absenteeism, and given opportunities to address the issue, and to work within the Employer’s required policy on absences. The Worker was ultimately dismissed in February 2022.
Subsequent to dismissal, some of the Worker’s communications with the Employer were inappropriate. Those communications were responded to professionally and courteously by the Employer. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I do not recommend in favour of the Worker. I recommend that if the Worker has not already done so, that he engages with the Employer in order to organise for the collection of all of the Employer’s equipment from the Worker by courier at the Employer’s expense (as per the Employer’s standard practice with respect to former employees), all of which is to be returned to the Employer within 42 days of the date of this recommendation, in full and final settlement of this claim. |
Dated: 2nd March 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Lefre de Burgh
Key Words:
Industrial Relations; probationary dismissal; absenteeism; O’Donovan V. Over-C Technology & Anor [2021] IECA 37; S.I. 146/2000 |