Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jake  Dowd Gilligan

Conlon Fuel Oils Limited  

Representatives

Self-Represented  

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00066008-001

16/09/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 7th April 2023. The Complainant earned €11.30 per hour and received variable hours throughout his employment. The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 16th September 2024.

On 16th September 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent dismissed him without any apparent cause and without engaging in any form of internal procedure. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s employment came to its natural end with the Complainant returning to university and the end of the intended contract of employment.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 26th November 2024. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of his complaint, while a Store Manager of the Respondent gave evidence in defense. All evidence was given under oath or affirmation and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent’s name was amended on consent to reflect their correct legal title.

In evidence, the Complainant stated that he was engaged as a Customer Service Operative by the Respondent. The Complainant was a student throughout his engagement and generally worked at the weekend and during the holidays.

During the Complainant’s tenure, his usual duties included general floor duties, stacking shelves, working on the tills and operating an ice cream station. The Complainant generally worked for two days per week, however the number of hours he received was variable throughout his employment.

In August of 2024, the Complainant informed the store manager of his intention to commence a university course in the coming weeks. The Complainant stated that he would remain available for weekend hours and could continue his hours from the previous school term. The following week the Complainant received no hours at all. When the Complainant queried this, he was informed that the ice cream station had become less busy with the end of the summer season and that fewer hours were available. Over the following weeks, the Complainant received no hours from the Respondent. On 16th September, the Complainant received a payslip with “leavers” pay and correspondence saying that his employment was terminated.

By submission the Complainant stated that his employment was terminated without any apparent cause and without any form of engagement or procedure. In this regard, he submitted that his dismissal was unfair for the purposes of the impleaded Act.

In answering the allegations raised by the Complainant, the Respondent denied that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed as defined by the Act.

In this respect, the Respondent agreed that the Complainant was a student and was engaged on an ad hoc basis. The Respondent further agreed that the Complainant would complete more hours in the summer months and thereafter work one to two days during the school term.

In evidence, the store manager stated that she attempted to contact the Complainant regarding shifts that had become available during the summer months. On several occasions, the Complainant either did not answer the store manager’s call or refused the offer of work.

In August 2024, the Complainant stated that he was commencing a third level university course and enquired as to the availability of hours for the coming term. By response, the store manager stated that the ice cream section of the business normally becomes quiet after the summer months. The store manager offered the Complainant a role in the deli section, which the Complainant refused immediately. Following the same, the Store Manager stated that she would have to let the Complainant go as she had to prioritise hours for the full-time staff.

Regarding the present case, the Complainant has alleged that he was dismissed by the Respondent without any apparent cause and without engagement with any form of procedure. By response, the Respondent stated that the employment came to a natural end when the Complainant commenced a university course and with the reduction in need for his services during the winter months.

In circumstances whereby no dispute exists as to the fact of the Complainant’s dismissal, the Respondent will bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that the same is “fair” for the purposes of the impleaded Act.

In this regard, Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts provides that,

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed for the purpose of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal”

Section 6(6) of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides that,

“In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection 4”

Subsection 4 lists the grounds by which a dismissal may be deemed to be fair, including misconduct on the part of the employee and the redundancy of his position.

Section 6(7) provides that in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, regard may be had:

a) “to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply…with the procedure…or with the provisions of any code of practice….”.

In the present case the Respondent has submitted that the dismissal of the Complainant arose by virtue of the fact that the requirement for his services had reduced and that they had to prioritise the hours of their permanent staff. By submission, the Respondent further alluded to some issue of apparent misconduct, in that the Complainant did not return calls in relation to shifts that had arisen. It was further submitted that the contract had come it natural end with the Complainant leaving for university.

The difficulty from the Respondent’s perspective is that an employer must engage in some form of process and consultation with the employee in order to lawfully establish any of the grounds of dismissal outlined in the Act. While the Respondent has submitted that she spoke with the Complainant regarding the availability of hours during the school term (and it noted that the Complainant disputed this version of events), it is apparent that the Respondent engaged in no formal procedure regarding the redundancy of the Complainant prior to his dismissal. From the submissions and evidence of the Complainant it is further apparent that he did not believe that his role was actually redundant. In particular, he submitted that he performed the role at the weekend the previous year, and that those hours were still available. While the Respondent contested this position, it is noted that the correct forum for such discussion is by way of an internal consultation meeting.

Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, I find that the Respondent has not established that the dismissal of the Complainant was not unfair for the purposes of the impleaded Act. In such circumstances I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and his complaint is deemed to be well-founded.

I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed within the definition of the Acts and consequently I find that his application is well-founded.

In relation to redress, Section 7(1) empowers me to order re-instatement, re-engagement or a payment of compensation to be made to a successful Complainant under the Act. Given that neither party wished for the employment relation to recommence, compensation is the most appropriate redress in this circumstance.

In calculating such compensation, regard must be had to the Complainant’s attempts to mitigate his losses following his dismissal. By submission, the Complainant stated that he found alternative employment in the weeks following his dismissal. In such circumstances, the Complainant submitted that his losses arising from the dismissal were approximately €1,000.

Having regard to the foregoing, I award the Complainant the sum of €1,000 in compensation.

Dismissal, Redundancy, Procedure