ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR-SC-00003388
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | Process Operator | Meat Processing Plant |
Representatives | Self-Represented |
|
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00067234-001 | 07/11/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Date of Hearing: 28/05/2025
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. The Employer did not attend the hearing, but I am reasonably satisfied that it had notice of the arrangement for the hearing.
Background:
The Worked was employed as a process operator with the Employer from 5 July 2024 until termination of his contract by the Employer on 24 October 2024. He was paid a weekly wage of €695; net €600. The Worker claims that the manner of his dismissal was unfair |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker claims that when he brought an incident of aggression by a colleague to the attention of HR, his supervisor suggested afterwards, in what the Worker claims was an unfriendly fashion, that he (the Worker) might leave the employment if he was unhappy. The Worker moved to another process line where matters had improved. In the meantime, he wrote to the Employer in or around September indicating that he wished to finish his employment on 24 November 2024 to allow him to return to his home country, and in doing so, the Worker submits, gave the Employer ample opportunity to fill his position. On 24 October 2024, the Employee claims that he insisted on taking a toilet break despite the Employer’s refusal. The process line had to stop to allow him to go to the restroom. In a letter dated the same day from the supervisor to the Worker (exhibited) the Employer told the Worker that due to the “ongoing review of processes” his employment was being terminated that day. The Worker submits that the manner of his dismissal was unfair in all respects. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer did not attend the hearing. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have considered the relevant submission presented to me by the Worker, in the absence of the Employer. In Beechside Company Limited T/a Park Hotel Kenmare v. A Worker LCR21798 [2018], the Labour Court emphasised that substantial grounds for dismissal as well as procedural fairness must be used. I am satisfied in this case that no proper procedures were used by the Employer, nor were substantial grounds referred to in the letter of 10 October 2024 other than a reference to an “ongoing review of processes”. This statement is devoid of relevance or meaning in the context of an employer/employee relationship. Therefore, I find that the Employee was treated unfairly in the way his contract was terminated. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. For the reasons outlined above, I uphold the Workers claim that he was subject to unfair process of dismissal. When assessing compensation, the situation was tempered by the fact that the Employee had already told the Employer that he was finishing anyway on 24 November 2024, and he was already paid a week’s notice. Having taken this into account I believe the correct compensation in this case should be 3 weeks net pay. I recommend that the Employer pay the Employee compensation of a net sum of €1800 for unfair treatment.
Dated: 01st of July 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Industrial Relations Act 1969, Unfair Dismissal. |