ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00003286
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Senior Sales Manger | A Vitamin Producer and Provider |
Representatives |
|
|
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00066694-001 | 14/10/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Date of Hearing: 27/03/2025
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 (as amended by the Workplace Relations Act 2015 so as to include Adjudication Officers) and where a trade dispute (not specifically precluded by Sect. 13) has been identified and has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, the said Director General will then refer such a dispute to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said dispute heard in similar manner as has been set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act which allows the Adjudication Officer to Investigate a matter raised. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence/testimony of the parties and their witnesses and will also take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
A Trade Dispute in this context will include any dispute between an employer and a worker which is connected with the employment or the non-employment, or with the terms and conditions relating to and/or affecting the employment of any person.
I have confirmed that the Complainant herein is a Worker within the meaning of the Acts, and I have conducted an investigation into the said trade dispute as described in Section 13. It is noted that Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 empowers me to make a recommendation or recommendations to disputing parties on foot of any investigation so conducted. In making such recommendations, I am obliged to set out my opinion on the merits of the dispute and the positions taken by the parties thereto. I note that any consideration on the merits of the dispute will include an examination of the efforts made by the parties to exhaust any and all internal procedures or structures which ought to have been utilised before bringing the dispute to the attention of the WRC.
Where applicable, this investigation may involve an assessment of whether processes have complied with the general principles set out in the Code of Practise on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI146 of 2000).
It is noted that the Complainant herein is alleging that fair procedures were not followed and that she was unfairly dismissed. It is further noted that the complainant has less than one year of service with the Employer. In such circumstances, Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969 allows the worker to refer the dismissal to the WRC as a dispute under the Industrial Relations Acts.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969. Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side. The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 27th of September 2024.
|
Summary of Workers Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made her own case. The Complainant alleges that she was unfairly dismissed after four months of employment. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.
|
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 18th of February 2025 - and posted to the Registered Office of the Respondent Company. By an email dated the 25th of March 2025 the Respondent Operations Manager communicated with the WRC that it would not be represented at the hearing. The email read as follows: I refer to case ADJ-00054593 [The Complainant] was found to be unsuitable for the position she had been employed for and despite our best efforts having invested over €40,000 in recruitment fees, a car, salary, and expenses, we very reluctantly had to terminate her employment and wish her well in her future. Upon reflection therefore, ’[The Respondent] won’t be represented at the hearing. We are no longer engaging with the process as we believe we followed our company procedures surrounding the contractually agreed probation period during which her employment was terminated. We don’t accept the complaint. We thank you for your time and efforts. If I can be of any further assistance on this matter, please let me know. The non-attendance of the Respondent did not therefore come as a surprise on the hearing date. |
Conclusions:
The Complainant has worked for twenty years in the marketing and sales of pharmaceuticals and related products. Before coming to work with the Respondent herein, the Complainant had spent nineteen years working with one of the Ireland’s largest healthcare providers. She came to the Respondent company with considerable experience and understanding sales and marketing in this sector. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent company after a recruitment process which identified her skillset as having value for the company. The Complainant commenced her employment in May of 2024. The Respondent company is in the production of vitamins and nutritional supplements. The Complainant explained that the Respondent company was coming under pressure from competitors and wanted experienced sales teams to go out into the market to shore up the Respondent’s position at a grass roots level. The Complainant worked in the west of the country travelling to pharmacies and health food shops. The Complainant put in huge mileage and is confident that her work was increasing market share for the Respondent company. The Complainant’s annual salary was in the sum of €50,000.00. The Complainant left a well-paid position to take this role on after a process of being head hunted by the Respondent. The Complainant felt that she was performing well and had certainly had no negative feedback from any of the line Management. The Complainant described the events of the 23rd of September 2024 as per her own complaint form as follows: On Sept 20th, my work colleague, J and I, were summoned to the office for a progress sales meeting on the Monday. We both turned up on the morning of the 23rd of Sept. No sign of O the boss. We were then asked by S the operations manager to go to the boardroom downstairs. S and the graphic designer girl sat at one side of the table and J and I at the opposite side. So S started by saying she got a phone call from O the night before. She said that O wasn’t happy the direction the company was going in and that she was sorry. I said sorry for what!.. J asked if we were being fired and she replied yes… I pointed out’ how does he expect to turn things around in 4 months for me and 2 months for J… with very little direction.. S also said that she has never anything to do with the reps side of things but yet she fired us… we were also left stranded there as they took the cars from us and said we weren’t insured to drive the cars anymore!… so I had to find my own way home to Galway. So just to point out, I was head hunted by a recruitment agency for him. I was in my previous role for 19 years and let go after 4 months!… also we were brought to the head office under false pretences and under the GDPR act a serious violation of privacy (2 employees fired together and L the graphic designer sitting there for the fun of it… The Complainant repeated this narrative in evidence before me. This amounted to a summary dismissal without cause shown. There was no preamble to this decision, and the Complainant had no inkling that her work was at issue. The Complainant has not to this date been given a good reason for the termination of her employment. The Respondent has, of it’s own volition, opted not to attend this hearing and I have therefore not heard the reasoning they might have used to justify their actions. I found the Complainant to be a truthful and honest witness and on balance I am bound to accept the Complainant’s case that she was unfairly dismissed without any proper procedures being used to forewarn or forearm her. The Complainant is at a financial loss arising out of this treatment and this fact is reflected in the recommendation. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. I acknowledge that the Adjudication process must avoid making a recommendation which has a collective impact on a body of workers.
CA-00066694-001 – I recommend that the Respondent company does pay to the Complainant herein the sum of €45,000.00 compensation for the unfair manner of the dismissal wherein no regard was had for the procedural rights and entitlement of the Complainant as an Employee. This money should be paid within eight weeks of the date of this recommendation.
Dated: 02-05-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|