Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Stivens  Sanchez

Kcs Cold Storage And Logistics

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

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-00068657-001

16/01/2025

The complainant submits that he commenced employment with the respondent on 9th of September 2024 and was dismissed from his employment on 7th of January 2025, he claims that he was unfairly dismissed.  The respondent submits that the complainant is not covered by the legislation as he has less than one years’ service.

The complainant submits that he commenced employment with the respondent on 9th of September 2024 and was dismissed from his employment on 7th of January 2025

The complainant submits that on 12th November 2024, he informed Mr. L that he had a medical appointment the following day. Mr. L queried why the Complainant was giving such short notice for time off and asked if he would be returning to work after the appointment to which the complainant replied that he did not know.

Th complainant submits that he later received a phone call from Mr. L’s brother who is warehouse manager asking about the situation of the medical appointment and when he would return to work

The complainant submits that he explained about the appointment and said that Mr. Ls brother had been rude to him and behaved inappropriately when he told him about it

The complainant submits that he was sick again in December and returned to work in January after which he was dismissed.

The complainant submits that Mr. L dismissed him but stated that his performance was very good, that he was a great worker and he would give him a reference but that he was being dismissed as they had almost no clients that there was not much work, so they no longer needed him.

The respondent submits that

The Complainant was issued with updated Terms & Conditions of Employment at induction which included his start date of 24th September 2024

The probation clause (page 5, clause 11(a) and 11(c) in The Complainant’s Terms & Conditions of Employment states (11a) “A probationary period of 6 months will apply, and your employment may be terminated by either party during the 6-month period at any time with one weeks’ prior notice. Alternatively, the Company may provide payment in lieu of notice”. 8.3 (11c) “The Company reserves the right to terminate your employment at any stage during the probationary period. The Company’s disciplinary procedure shall not apply to any dismissal during the probation period, or any extension thereof”.

The Complainant indicated that he would like to work a four-day week and despite being employed specifically for a five-day week, the Company agreed to a four-day week, (Tuesday to Friday) on a trial basis. The Complainant worked a four-day week until the cessation of his employment with the Company.

The complainant was dismissed due to business needs within the 6-month probationary period

The complainant does not have the required 12 months service to pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act.  

Section 2 (1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 which states the Act shall not apply to;

an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year's continuous service with the employer who dismissed him and whose dismissal does not result wholly or mainly from the matters referred to in section 6 (2) (f) of this Act,

The respondent advised the hearing that it is objecting to the claim on the grounds that the complainant did not have the required 12 months service to pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act.  The Complainant received his contract of employment in writing with a six-month probation period specified in the contract.

The complainant advised the hearing that he is relying on an exemption to the 12 months requirement.  The complainant was asked at the hearing to point out what exemption he was relying on and stated that he had made a complaint with the respondent in respect of mistreatment he had experienced while employed by them.  The complainant stated that he made a verbal complaint in this regard and that it happened over the phone when he complained to Mr. R about Mr. L s behaviour when he advised he that he needed time off for a medical appointment the day before the appointment.    The complainant stated that he also complained to Mr. C stating that he had told Mr. C that Mr. L had asked him to do extra hours but that the complainant was unable to do this due to personal issues.

The complainant submits that he was then treated badly by Mr. L because he refused to work extra hours when asked to do so by Mr. L.

The complainant advised the hearing that he was told he was being dismissed due to a downturn in the business but that he believes he was fired due to the fact that he had refused to do extra hours and that everything that happened was due to not doing the extra hours.  The complainant also told the hearing that he had taken sick leave on 2 occasions and that he had provided medical certificates in this regard.  The complainant went on to state that he was fired for taking sick leave.

The complainant stated that a colleague who was hired after him was not dismissed and so this shows that the respondent discriminated against him.  The complainant at the hearing was asked under what ground he was seeking to assert a claim of discrimination, and he stated that it was due to not working the extra hours and also due to his sick leave.

The respondent at the hearing stated that it was surprised to hear of discrimination allegation. The respondent sated that the complainant was let go during his probationary period due to business needs as there had been a downturn in business at the time.

Having examined this matter I am satisfied that the complainant is not covered by any of the exemptions to the 12 months service requirement for a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act. 

Accordingly, I find that the complainant, having less than 12 months service at the date of termination of his employment, lacks the locus standi to pursue the complaint and I determine that I do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on his complaint of unfair dismissal.   I declare this claim to be not well founded.

I find that the complainant, having less than 12 months service at the date of termination of his employment, lacks the locus standi to pursue the complaint and I determine that I do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on his complaint of unfair dismissal. I declare this claim to be not well founded.