ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054209
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adrian Achim | Pro-Res |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Did not attend and was not represented |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00066076-001 | 17/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Following the judgement in Tomasz Zalewski v Adjudication Officer, WRC & Ors [2019]those attending were advised that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are held in public and, in most cases, decisions are not anonymised. The parties were also advised that Adjudication Officers hear evidence on oath or affirmation and all participants who gave evidence were sworn in. If appropriate both parties would be offered the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence and where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
The hearing was attended by the Complainant who took an affirmation to be truthful with the Commission and, Marius Nicula, an interpreter who took an affirmation to translate truthfully
The meeting had been previously adjourned to the unavailability of an interpreter and the non-appearance of the Respondent; to allow them a further opportunity to attend.
On the morning of the in-person Adjudication (25/04/2025) the Case Officer spoke to the Respondent on the phone and was told that he had not received an email on the hearing and would not be able to attend. We note that the Respondent gave the Commission his email and permission to correspond through that medium on the 8th of October 2024 and the Commission has no note of the email giving notice being returned.
Following the telephone conversation the Case officer followed up with resending the notice and it was not returned as undeliverable. I have, therefore, concluded that the Respondent was fully on notice and has chosen not to attend and not to proffer contrary evidence to that the of the Complainant.
Background:
The Complainant was dismissed by email on the 21st of August 2024 having been employed since the 18th of January 2023. He referred his complaint to the Commission on the 17th of September 2024 and is therefore within the statutory limit for bringing a complaint. The Complainant has a myriad of complaints about the Respondent and paints a poor picture of the Employer and his attitude to him and others. There were also complaints about nonpayment and ill treatment that are not encompassed by the Unfair Dismissals Act and over which I have no jurisdiction under the complaint referred. Evidence was given under affirmation, and I found the Complainant to be truthful and earnest. Having heard all possible submissions from the parties the hearing was properly closed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant received an email from the Respondent summarily dismissing him on the basis that he went on unauthorised absence. The Complainant denies this in full and asserts under affirmation that his leave was approved some time in advance. The Complainant describes the employment as one marked with vulgarity and insults of a deeply personal nature toward him and his coworkers. · The Complainant also describes substandard and unfair working practices without proper equipment or regard for common decency to add to unsafe working practices. · The Complainant outlines that he has not received fair procedures, or procedures of any kind. · The Complainant made out his losses at €4800.00 gross in total |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent chose to not attend |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant gave evidence that he was hired on the 18/01/2023 and dismissed on 21/08/2024, giving him over 12 months service under the relevant act and allowing him to bring his complaint to the WRC. In the absence of an appearance by the Respondent and having heard the evidence of the Complainant under affirmation, I must accept what I was told was true. · That he was dismissed without the use of procedures and investigation. · That he was paid €200 per day and worked on average 6 days per week to total gross payment of €1200 per week. · That he did not secure other employment until the 1st of October 2024 leaving him without work for a period of 5 weeks, although he was paid his notice period of one week. The Complainant confirmed that he had been paid for annual leave days remaining and was paid his required notice period. This left him without payment for four weeks. It is clear, in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the Complainant was dismissed unfairly and falls to be considered under remedies. The Complainant has set out a description of losses amount to 4 weeks pay at €1200 per week based on an average six -day week to a total amount of €4,800. The Complainant has not sought re-engagement nor re-instatement. However, I am required to consider these as a remedy. S 7(1)(a) provides that reinstatement shall be in the position which the employee held immediately before dismissal on the terms on which they were employed before and deemed to have commenced on the day of the dismissal. Reinstatement is entirely within the discretion of the Adjudicator, having regard to all the circumstances. In all the circumstances of this case, where there is an absolute breakdown in trust between the parties and where the Complainant is already successfully employed in another role; I do not find reinstatement nor re-engagement a suitable remedy. Compensation Section 7(1)(c) of the Acts: - (i) if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, or (ii) if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, Section 7(2)(c) provides that in examining the financial loss, an Adjudicator must have regard to the measures adopted by the employee to mitigate his loss. The legislation does not allow an Adjudicator to award compensation in an amount that goes beyond the financial loss attributable to the dismissal. It is clear from the evidence given that the Complainant took efforts to mitigate his loss and found work relatively quickly after his dismissal. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case I am awarding the Complainant compensation to be paid by the Respondent under the Act in the amount of €4,800 gross (4 weeks salary) for the time he spent without work and as is just and equitable in all the circumstances and in accordance with 7(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
I find that the Complainant complaint is well founded, and I award him a total of €4,800 gross in compensation for his losses; to be paid by the Respondent. |
Dated: 28/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Key Words:
Non-attendance, losses attributable, unfair dismissal |