Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

N/A

Louise Byrne, O’Reilly & Byrne Solicitors LLP.

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 - 00003718

29 January 2025

On 2 October 2023, the Worker commenced work as a Cashier / Kitchen Assistant / Canteen Lady in a school canteen for the Employer, a catering services provider. The Worker earned approximately €214.70 per week, working approximately 19 hours per week.

The Worker outlined that following the school summer break, she expected to return to her role in August 2024. However, on 8 August 2024, she missed two calls from the Employer’s Company Secretary and then received a “WhatsApp” message from him. This message indicated: “going forward we will not require your services in the canteen. As you already know, your employment ceased in June. Best wishes.” The Worker outlined that her employment had not ceased in June 2024 and that she was unfairly dismissed, without reason, in August 2024. In her WRC Complaint Form, the Worker indicated that she did not have 12 months of service.

The Employer outlined that the Worker had not been unfairly dismissed and that her employment had come to an end at the end of the school year in May 2024, as per the terms and conditions of her employment.

The Worker provided written and oral submissions.

The Worker:

The Worker outlined that she worked for the Employer, in the school canteen, from 2 October 2023 until the end of May 2024. She stated that she had worked there for over ten years. Most recently, she worked alongside her Colleague, who also attended the Hearing. The Worker outlined that her tasks involved: working at the cash register; preparing food; and doing anything that was needed. She missed work on only two occasions, when family members passed away.

The Worker outlined that in terms of the menu, the Worker and the Worker’s Colleague could only use the food that the Company Secretary purchased and that he ran a “tight ship”. She denied that she reduced the price of some items.

The Worker said that she and her Colleague spoke with the Company Secretary in May 2024. He paid them their wages. He also mentioned that he had a meeting with the school principal at the beginning of June 2024, but said that he did not know what it was about and that there were no problems “at their end”. She said that she did not subsequently look for a job as she understood that she would be back to work, in the school canteen, at the end of August 2024.

She outlined that on 8 August 2024, she had two missed calls from the Company Secretary. He then sent her a “WhatsApp” message. This message indicated: “going forward we will not require your services in the canteen. As you already know, your employment ceased in June. Best wishes.” She responded with “What??”. She then called the Company Secretary back and he told her that she was not required to return to work. He got angry with her and said that she had already been told that her employment had ceased. He then allegedly said: “you’re old, you don’t remember being told”. She said that it was a heated discussion but that there was no shouting. The Worker denied the Company Secretary’s account of the telephone conversation in that she had used abusive and racist language.

The Worker outlined that she later found out that another employee had been hired to replace her and that her Colleague had also returned to work in August 2024. She outlined that she is annoyed with how things went as she thought that she got on well with the Company Director. She outlined that she was never given a reason for her dismissal. She further outlined that this has been a difficult year and that she wants this matter to be closed. She has been on illness benefit since her employment ceased.

The Worker’s Colleague:

The Worker’s Colleague outlined that she worked for the Employer, as a Canteen Lady, from February 2024 until Christmas 2024. She said that it was never mentioned by the Company Secretary to her and the Worker in May 2024 that their employment had ceased. She said that the Company Secretary said that he had a meeting with the school but that he did not know what it was about. He also wished them a lovely summer and said that he would see them again in August 2024.

She said that the Worker was good in her role and that she did not think that it was fair that the Worker lost her job. She said that the Employer subsequently hired another employee in the Worker’s place, who undertook all of the Worker’s tasks.

The Employer provided written and oral submissions.

The Employer outlined that the Worker’s duration of employment ran from September 2023 until May 2024. The Employer further outlined that the Worker was informed in May 2024 that her employment had ceased and that she was advised in August 2024, as a “courtesy” that her re-employment would not be required. The Worker was treated with respect throughout her employment. However, she was not able to provide the Employer with what it needed and so she was not re-employed. The other employee who was hired, performed different tasks predominantly for the baking section.

The Company Director:

The Company Director outlined that the Employer commenced its catering contract with the school at the end of September 2023. She said that it was a new venture with a probationary period. She said that it was a four-year contract, with an annual review. She said that they held the catering contract for two years, until May 2025 when the Employer terminated it.

She said that when the contract commenced, the school principal provided her with the contact details of those who had worked in the school canteen previously. She said that she subsequently spoke to the Worker, who commenced employment at the end of September 2023, on a fixed-term contract to coincide with the school year. She said that no contract of employment was provided to the Worker and that the terms were agreed verbally.

She said that she showed “understanding” when the Worker did not attend work. She also expressed concerns about a price reduction allegedly made by the Worker; and about the “overflowing spice bags” which the Worker allegedly gave to students. She also said that the school had complained to the Employer that students were left queuing for food while it was being prepared. She stated that she had not raised these issues previously with the Worker.

The Company Director stated that the Company Secretary spoke with the Worker in May 2024 and told her that the Employer had a meeting with the school in June 2024, regarding the catering contract. She stated that the Worker was given her notice in May 2024. She confirmed that while the school raised issues with the Company Secretary during the meeting, it still renewed its catering contract for the following school year.

The Company Director outlined that she subsequently started a baking business and that she employed another employee to help with the baking, who also “did some bits” in the canteen.

The Company Secretary:

The Company Secretary outlined that he was the Company Director’s husband. He stated that the Company Director had a difficult pregnancy, during which time he interacted with the employees. He stated that he was always polite and well-mannered. He stated that they always tried to accommodate employee requests.

The Company Secretary stated that the business was not performing well; that they owed money to suppliers; and that they had “low sales”. He discussed the matter with the Company Director, who subsequently started a “side business” in baking, which did well.

The Company Secretary stated that in May 2024, he met with Worker and the Worker’s Colleague. He paid their wages and made sure that everything was up to date. He told them that the company had an upcoming review with the school. He told them that the Employer did not know what would happen in the future. He stated that the Employer would “perform a cessation” regarding their employments and that there was no more work. He further stated that they “may not have understood” him and that he has no idea what they think.

The Company Secretary outlined that he rang the Worker as a “courtesy” on 8 August 2024. He denied that he called her “old”. He said that he does not know her date of birth. He said that if he had said or done anything to the Worker or to the Worker’s Colleague, he would like to express his apologies. He stated that the Worker used abusive and racist language towards him during the telephone conversation. He said that he did not expect it from her. He outlined that it was difficult for him to discuss this telephone conversation due to his personal health issues.

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

The Employer must demonstrate that a dismissal was: (1) substantially fair; and (2) procedurally fair.

The Labour Court emphasised the importance of fair procedures in Beechside Company Limited t/a Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker, LCR21798, noting:

“… it is imperative that an employer in a dismissal case must not only show that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal but also that fair and proper procedures were followed before the dismissal takes place. This requirement of procedural fairness is rooted in the common law concept of natural justice.”

In essence, the Worker maintained that she was dismissed without notice and without reason on 8 August 2024. The Employer maintained that the Worker had a fixed-term contract which coincided with the school year; that her employment ceased in May 2024; and that she was informed on 8 August 2024 that she would not be re-employed, as a “courtesy”.

I have considered all of the submissions. The Worker’s and the Company Secretary’s account of their conversation in May 2024 differ considerably. However, I note that the Worker’s account was corroborated by the Worker’s Colleague, who was also present during the conversation. I also note that the Company Secretary indicated that the Worker and her Colleague “may not have understood” him during the conversation in May 2024 when he allegedly told them that their employment had ceased.

It is also difficult to follow why the Company Secretary contacted the Worker on 8 August 2024 to inform her that her services would not be required going forward, if her employment had already been terminated in May 2024. Moreover, it is clear from the Worker’s almost immediate response to his “Whatsapp” message dated 8 August 2024 that she was taken by surprise by his message. This further supports the Worker’s account that her employment had not been terminated in May 2024, as alleged by the Employer.  

I also note that the Employer failed to provide the Worker with a contract of employment, which could have outlined the terms of the fixed-term contract and could have addressed the issues now raised.

Finally, I also note that the Company Director confirmed that no issues had been raised with the Worker regarding her performance, during the course of her employment.

In the circumstances, I find that the Worker was dismissed without notice in August 2024 and that her dismissal was substantially and procedurally unfair. Therefore, I find in favour of the Worker and I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker €900 in compensation, which is approximately one month’s pay.

Industrial Relations Act, section 13, Unfair Dismissal.