Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Storeman

Transport Company

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms. Roberta Urbon, Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002847

09/07/2024

The Worker commenced employment on 27th March 2024. The Worker was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly wage of €750.00. The Worker’s employment was terminated by his former employer on 9th July 2024.

On that date, the Worker referred the present dispute to the Commission. Herin, he alleged that the Employer dismissed him without recourse to any form of procedure. He further submitted that the substantive rationale for his dismissal had not been proven and that he did not have an opportunity to contest the same. By response, the Employer stated that the procedure adopted to dismiss the Worker was truncated given his short service. Nonetheless, they submitted that the issues leading to his dismissal were discussed with him in advance and that he had an opportunity to rectify the same.

In circumstances whereby the Employer did not object within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said was convened for, and finalised on, 18th 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.

The Worker issued a submission in advance of the hearing. While the Employer provided no written submission, they issued a statement at the hearing itself.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

By submission, the Worker stated that he was engaged as a “parts and store operative” by the Employer. This employment commenced on 27th March 2024.

Just over three months into his employment, on the morning of 8th July 2024, the Worker was verbally informed that his employment was to terminate with immediate effect. The Worker was informed that his dismissal was on three grounds; that he used his phone while working, that he used another electrical device while working and that he worked on his own car in the premises. While the Worker accepted that he brought his own vehicle into the garage, he stated that he understood that this was permitted at the time. He further submitted that he did not use any electrical device during his working time but restricted the use of the same to his breaks.

By submission, the Worker stated that his dismissal was unfair and unreasonable. He stated that he was not given an opportunity to contest the allegations raised against him and, during the hearing, he disputed that at least two of the alleged issues occurred at all. Finally, the Worker submitted that he attempted to appeal his dismissal, but his correspondence in this regard was ignored.

By response, the Employer stated that the Worker was observed using his phone and another electronic device in the course of his duties. They submitted that the Complainant was spoken to in relation to the same but continued to breach the Employer’s policy in this regard. In addition to the foregoing, the Worker completed works to his own vehicle on the Employer’s premises without the Employer’s permission. Again, the Worker was spoken to in relation to this issue in advance of his dismissal.

While the Employment accepted that the dismissal of the Worker could be deemed to be procedurally defective in the normal course, they submitted that given the short duration of the Worker’s employment, they were entitled to truncate the same. Having regard to all the circumstances, particularly the Worker’s short service, they submitted that the dismissal of the Worker was reasonable and fair.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

Regarding the present dispute, the Worker has submitted that he was summarily dismissed by the Employer. He submitted that this dismissal occurred in the absence of any of the normal procedural steps in relation to such dismissals and that he did not have an opportunity to contest the grounds for dismissal. By response, the Employer accepted that the dismissal of the Worker was not achieved by way of the standard procedure. Nonetheless, they submitted that the Worker was given spoken to in relation to the issues at hand and was given an opportunity to correct his actions.

Having reviewed the submissions and documents issued by the parties, it is apparent that the Worker was summarily dismissed by the Employer. This dismissal was affected without recourse to any form of procedure and was unambiguously conducted in contravention of the Worker’s right to a fair hearing. While the Employer has submitted that the Worker was “spoken to” in respect to many of the issues leading to his dismissal, there is a fundamental difference between a conversation between parties in the course of employment and a disciplinary sanction that might lead to dismissal. During the hearing, the Worker sought to dispute the Employer’s grounds for dismissal. During a functional internal process, the correct time to contest the Employer’s allegations would be during an investigation or disciplinary meeting. As matters transpired, the Worker was not afforded this opportunity and he was simply dismissed on spurious grounds, without being permitted the most basic opportunity to defend himself.

Having considered the cumulation of the foregoing points, I find that the dismissal of the Worker was clearly and unambiguously unfair and I recommend in his favour in relation to the dispute.

Dismissal, Procedure, Summary Dismissal