Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Bar

Representatives

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 - 00003685

20/001/2025

The Worker commenced employment on 10 October 2024 as a Chef and was paid €760 per week. The dispute concerns the dismissal of the Worker following his failure to attend work on 22 December 2024, a day on which he was not scheduled to work. The Employer contacted the Worker seeking that he attend work on that date due to an urgent staffing need. The Worker declined and the Employer therefore terminated his employment.

The Worker stated that although 22 December 2024 was his rostered day off, the Employer telephoned him and asked that he attend work due to staff shortages. He explained that he was unable to do so as he had pre‑arranged personal commitments and was travelling home the following day. The Worker maintained that declining a request to work on a scheduled rest day should not constitute grounds for dismissal. He further stated that he was subsequently dismissed without any warning, meeting, or procedure, which he believes was wholly unreasonable and disproportionate in the circumstances.

The Employer stated that they were short‑staffed on 22 December 2024, which they described as a key trading period, and for that reason they urgently required the Worker to attend for duty. They viewed the Worker’s refusal to come in on that date as a failure to support the business at a critical moment. The Employer further explained that, due to the post‑Christmas downturn, they had already anticipated ending the Worker’s employment in January 2025, and they considered that his refusal to attend work on 22 December 2024 effectively accelerated a decision that was already under consideration. In their view, the dismissal was reasonable and justified in light of the operational pressures facing the business at that time.

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

I am satisfied that the Worker was not rostered to work on 22 December 2024 and that no evidence was presented to show he was contractually obliged to work on rest days or to make himself available at short notice. While the Employer stated that there was an urgent need for the Worker’s attendance that day, no contractual provision or collectively agreed mechanism requiring Workers to attend work at such short notice was identified.

Furthermore, the dismissal was effected without any fair procedure, without warning, and without providing the Worker an opportunity to respond. Such an approach falls significantly short of the accepted standards set out in SI 146. The Employer’s suggestion that the Worker would, in any event, have been released in January due to a post‑Christmas downturn suggests that economic considerations, rather than misconduct, were a factor in the decision. This reinforces the conclusion that the summary dismissal was disproportionate in all the circumstances.