Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An apprentice

An engineering company

Representatives

 In person

 Company Management

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA – 00053260 - 001

13/10/2022

The complainant was employed as an apprentice plumber from 25th October 2021 until 5th October 2022.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 13th October 2022.

The worker believes that he was unfairly dismissed from employment.

The worker states that he was involved in an incident after working hours on Monday 3rd October 2022. The worker was involved in an incident with an employee from another company. In the worker’s own words he describes the incident as follows:

“The incident involved an employee of another company and I viewed his actions towards me as reckless as well as provoking so I reacted by confronting him on these actions using admittedly abrasive and firm language. My actions however were not threatening nor was there any physical contact in the encounter”.

The worker contends that the decision to dismiss him was even more harsh as he had never received any verbal or written warnings before this incident, nor had he been involved in any major wrong doings in his time with the company prior to this event.

The worker stated that he had been denied the opportunity to provide his account of the incident prior to being dismissed. The worker stated that it would have been fair had he been provided with the opportunity to give his side of the story.

The worker states that he made attempts multiple times to contact the head office but has never received any correspondence from the company.

The spokesperson for the employer clearly states that the altercation with an employee from another company took place during working hours and not after working hours as stated by the worker.

In relation to the worker’s conduct the spokesperson stated that the worker had an attitude problem and had been spoken to several times by his supervisor in relation to this although nothing was formally recorded. It was also stated by the spokesperson that the worker had great potential, but his attitude was poor.

The spokesperson for the employer was quite sure that the worker had verbally abused the employee of the other company.

The manager of the company (who was also the spokesperson at the hearing) met with the worker two days after the altercation and informed him that he was dismissed, this meeting took place on site.

No letter of dismissal was issued to the worker.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Procedures are not always followed correctly during employment, and in some cases, they have been completely neglected, subsequently denying an employee of fair treatment. The crux of disciplinary procedures remains basic fairness. This raises the question: how do we define basic fairness?

The code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 OF 2000) states that the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures must include the following:

·        The employee is fully aware of any formal allegation made against them.

·        They are afforded the opportunity to respond fully to any such allegations or complaints.

·        They are given the opportunity to avail of the right to be represented during the procedure.

·        That the employee has the right to a fair examination, and impartial determination of the issues.

·        The disciplinary action should be fair and not excessive.

In the instant case I note that the dismissal took place on a site and the worker was not afforded the opportunity to appeal against the sanction of dismissal.

I conclude that this lack of fair procedures deems the dismissal of the worker to be unfair however I cannot overlook the conduct of the worker. From a substantive view the dismissal of the worker is what I believe to be reasonable given all of the circumstances.

I conclude that the worker was unfairly dismissed however I also find that he contributed 70% to his own dismissal.

I now recommend that the employer pay compensation to the worker in the sum of €1,500.

Such sum should be paid within 42 days from the date of this recommendation.