ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00053711

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  31/03/2025 & 14/05/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Background:

The Complainant submitted complaints on 29 August 2024 that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment and that he never received a written statement of terms of employment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed as a Barman from 1 September 2022 to 27 March 2024.  He did not receive written terms of employment.  He was paid €229.84 for a 15 hour working week.  He changed his week off from week ending 22 March 2024 to week ending 29 March 2024.  This was to facilitate another staff member going on holidays.  He received a text from the Respondent on 27 March 2024 to say that since he took holidays without informing him, the holidays can now be permanent.  The Complainant stated that he was out of work for 12 months and secured employment in March 2025.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend the hearing on 14 May 2025.  He emailed the WRC on 31 March 2025 to state that he waited to enter the virtual hearing.  The email read as follows:

I was signed in to the meeting, waited for 10 minutes nobody showed up, I went out of my way to comply with your demands, as far am concerned now this matter is concluded, and please don't contact me again.

Findings and Conclusions:

The first hearing of these complaints was convened remotely for 12 noon, 31 March 2025.   The hearing had to be abandoned at 12.40pm due to technical difficulties preventing the Complainant and his representative gaining access.   The Respondent emailed the WRC advising that he was signed into the hearing.  A reply was sent to him as follows:

Your email dated 31/03/2025 was received by the WRC at 13:21 today.

Due to technical difficulties the hearing for the case which was scheduled for 12noon did not proceed and was closed at 12.40pm on the basis that a face-to-face hearing will be heard in Waterford.

I am sorry you did not gain access to the hearing and can confirm there is no record of you attempting to gain access.  Perhaps the time difference between Ireland and Kenya may have been a factor.

I note your request not to make contact with you again.

However, as a statutory body with the responsibility to provide a hearing for all parties to a complaint, the WRC is obliged to inform you when the resumed hearing will take place and an Adjudication Officer is obliged by law to investigate the complaint.

I note the time difference may have been a factor in difficulties encountered by the Respondent in gaining access to the hearing on 31 March 2025.  However, as stated there was no record of the access attempt or request.

In accordance with my statutory responsibilities, it is incumbent upon me to issue a decision in the matter.

ADJ-00065678-001           Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended)

I note the Complainant’s submission that he was dismissed from his job for changing a roster.                           The dismissal took place by text, with no due process afforded to the Complainant to provide an explanation.  Statutory Instrument S.I. 146/2000 provides the basic requirements and responsibilities on employers when considering transgressions by employees.  These include the right of the employee to know that charge against them, the right of a fair process, and the right to appeal a sanction.  None of these basic requirements were met.  In the circumstances, I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

CA-00065678-002            Terms of employment (Information) Act 1994

Section 3 of the Act requires employers to provide employees with a written statement of terms of employment.  In this instant case, I note the Complainant stated that he did not receive such a statement.  I find the Respondent did not comply with the Act.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

ADJ-00065678-001          Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 requires that I make a decision in accordance with the redress provisions of that Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.  I have taken into account the Complainant’s loss of wages and his attempts to mitigate those losses.   I award him the sum of €4,600 compensation.

CA-00065678-002            Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 requires that I make a decision in accordance with the redress provisions of that Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the Complainant’s complaint is well founded.  In accordance with Section 7 of the Act, I order the Respondent to pay compensation in the amount of €460.

Dated:   10-07-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: