Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A complainant

A respondent

Representatives

  Self-represented

Non-attendance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00066565-001

09/10/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant gave his evidence under affirmation. 

The respondent did not attend the hearing however I am satisfied that the respondent was aware of the hearing details.  Accordingly, the hearing proceeded following a short delay to facilitate the respondent in joining if they wished to do so.  The respondent did not join the hearing, and the matter was heard to conclusion.

The hearing proceeded with the assistance of an interpreter provided by the WRC.

I have departed from the principle of open justice and anonymised this decision on the basis that there are matters ongoing in a Garda investigation and also that failure to do so may serve to identify an asylum seeker.

The complainant indicated that he married the owner’s daughter and two days later was dismissed when he was told not to return to work.  He was instructed to return to the Garage to collect his car but was set upon and stabbed when he attended at the appointed hour.  The complainant indicated that this matter and subsequent assaults are with the Gardai for investigation.

The complainant suggested that the termination of his employment in this fashion amounted to an unfair dismissal.  He provided copies of his payslips showing that his weekly wage amounted to €508 per week and played voice mails in support of his contention.  He gave evidence of having sought alternative employment and of how he visited numerous businesses in an effort to secure employment.  He provided documentary evidence showing his efforts to secure alternative employment.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter.

The complainant outlined the circumstances of his termination and of his financial situation and efforts to secure alternative employment at the hearing.  The complainant came across as a credible witness.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of the matter.

Section 6(1) of the Act states as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal”.

Having regard to the legislation and to the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant, I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.

The complainant outlined that his financial loss amounted to one year’s salary.  I am satisfied as to the efforts made by the complainant to see alternative employment.  Accordingly, I find that the loss of earnings amounts to 54 weeks salary.  I find that the complainant is entitled to 100% of his loss. The complainant was earning €508 weekly in employment, however the minimum wages increased from 1 January 2025 to €13.50 per hour.  In consideration of this situation, the financial loss for the first 14 weeks amounts to €7112 and for latter 44 weeks amounts to €23,166.  The total financial loss amounts to €30,278.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was unfairly dismissed, and he is entitled to compensation for his former employer of €30,278 which is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

Unfair dismissal established – compensation awarded