Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Liam  Kyle

Bar One Racing

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-00068857-001

27/01/2025

The respondent accepted that the complainant‘s employment had been terminated and as the burden of proof then transferred to it submitted as follows.

The complainant started work as a part time service desk engineer and was made full time around October 2023 and was employed up to the date of his dismissal.

Issues began to arise about his attendance and punctuality, and he had about sixteen days’ absences in total.

These were brought to his attention initially at a meeting on September 9th, 2024,  but in response to a question it was confirmed that this was not a Disciplinary Hearing.

A second meeting took place on October 22nd, 2024, and then there was a final meeting at which the complainant’s employment was terminated on January 27th, 2025.

He was given a letter terminating his employment.

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

The complainant says that his work was good and there were no issues. On occasions a few months after he became full time, he noticed his manager was reassigning work from colleagues to him .

He said that he had some sick leave, and he was slightly late on a few occasions but that it was infrequent. However, when he was confronted by his management about it, they insisted that he had taken sixteen days.

He recalled that he had a few informal meetings, but no warnings were issued to him.

Specifically, regarding the meeting on September 11th, 2024, he had no idea that it was a disciplinary meeting until he was handed a document to sign which was a record of his sick leave absences.

He was not allowed to retain a copy of the document. He says that he signed it under duress as he was told that if he did not do so his employment could be terminated. He was not given a copy of it.

 In relation to a letter of warning referred to by the respondent he said he had never seen the document and definitely had not been given a copy of it.

In relation to his attempts to secure alternative employment he said that he made numerous efforts every week to get alternative employment and in due course got employment on March 10th.

There are no continuing losses.

The hearing of this case was somewhat extraordinary. This was in large measure due to the attitude of the respondent which demonstrated a most casual indifference to its obligations in relation to the hearing.

No written submission was received before the hearing which was attended on behalf of the respondent by two HR officials.

No witnesses as to the events relevant to the dismissal were present for the hearing even though it was abundantly clear from the Complaint Form (and was probably well known anyway) who the relevant witnesses were.

It was stated that one person might be available, hardly an acceptable approach to a tribunal hearing

There was complete confusion about the three main meetings which were relied on by the respondent.

Having referred to the first of three meetings as having taken place on September 11th, 2024, it was subsequently accepted that this had not been a disciplinary meeting,  but no record of it, or of the outcome was made available to the hearing.

In relation to the meeting on October 19th, it was asserted that the complainant had been given twenty-four hours’ notice of the meeting, but apparently not in writing.

The complainant, in the course of his evidence had asserted that he had never been given a formal warning at any stage.

It turns out that the respondent alleged that he had been given a warning at the meeting on October 19th but the reason for the complainant’s confusion on this point soon became clear.

In his evidence the complainant stated that he only remembered being handed a document with a list of his sick leave absences, which, he said he disputed and asked to be allowed to check the details. His evidence was that the meeting was quite cordial until he was instructed to sign the attendance record.

In the event he was not permitted to check the document and forced under duress to sign it. He asked for a copy and said that he does not recall ever receiving it.

In a bizarre twist the respondent claimed that he was also given, or more precisely shown, the letter of warning on which reliance was subsequently placed the following January when it terminated his employment.

Whether this was the same or a different document to that setting out the alleged absences is not clear. Either way, the fact that the complainant was not given a copy is fatal.

The respondent did not apparently  consider it necessary to submit any relevant documents in evidence from which I draw the obvious conclusions in respect of the burden of proof.

This then, is the explanation for the complainant’s belief that he had never been given a warning because he had never been given a copy of the warning, if indeed it ever existed.

It seems probable that no such warning was administered on the date claimed and in any event the complainant should have been given a copy of it formally.

Whatever way you look at it this meeting it represented a gross violation of fair procedure requirements and of the complainant’s rights to a transparent process.

He had not been given adequate notice of the disciplinary meeting in writing and only twenty-four hours altogether, he was not advised of the nature of the meeting, his right to a companion at it,  or the possible outcomes to which he might be exposed. Finally, he was not given a copy of the document allegedly containing the warning.

This episode acquires further significance in relation to the meeting of January 27th, 2025.

Not only was it another masterclass in how not to convene a disciplinary meeting; no written notice, no right to representation, no notice of possible sanctions etc., but in terminating the complainant‘s employment reliance was placed on the letter of warning allegedly issued at the meeting the previous October.

It is rare these days to encounter such a complete repertoire of gross breaches of fair procedure and of a worker’s rights.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Regarding the final meetings in January 2025, he had been ill on January 24th but went in for his shift on Sunday 26th but having sought a meeting it did not take place until the following day.

 He had been told that day that everything in relation to his employment was fine and that his incidence of lates was improving. Nonetheless, he was subsequently invited to a  meeting at which his employment was terminated. He did try to offer an explanation for his absences, but his evidence was that no account was taken of it.

I have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. The treatment of the complainant was deplorable.

He was out of work for five weeks and I accept his assurances regarding his attempts to mitigate his losses. His gross pay was €540.00 per week.

The dismissal was unfair and Complaint CA-00068857-001 succeeds. I award the complainant €2700.00.

Unfair dismissal