Case Number: ADJ-00001250. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00001250
• Date: 15 June 2015
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Technical Support Person v A Communications Company

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00001250

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Technical Support person	A Communications company

Complaint(s):

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-00001697-001	29/12/2015
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00001697-002	29/12/2015

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/04/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background:

The Complainant alleged he was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant submitted two identical complaints to the WRC and Compliant Reference Number CA-00001697-002 was withdrawn at the Hearing. This decision relates to reference number CA-00001697-001.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant made a verbal submission. He was dismissed on August 24th 2015 without warning or fair procedures. He was dismissed for what other staff do routinely. He did appeal his dismissal internally but got no response to his request to have an appeal hearing. He advised that just because he enquired about redundancy a few times is not relevant to the case. There was no personal gain for what the Complainant said to Customers. He was encouraged to engage with Customers and give them things if they were unhappy. His personal website was illegally accessed by company Representatives after he left their employment. He was encouraged to send Customers to their own website and got fired for doing it. What he did, did not amount to gross misconduct and he was unfairly treated.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Complainant was dismissed, after an investigation, for inappropriate handing of customer calls and stating to Customers that he was going to be made redundant if they did not leave positive messages about him on the Company web site or his Facebook. He failed to follow Company protocol and gave away company property for free and inappropriately. He used inappropriate language to customers. The Complainant made derogatory remarks about the company and management to customers. The Complainant lied to customers. The Complainant was given the opportunity to present his answers to the allegations and he failed to provide any reasonable answers. The Complainant had previously failed to follow company policy when on sick leave. The Complainant had a Union Representative present at his disciplinary hearing. The Complainant was advised to contact his Union Representative when the allegations of gross misconduct were presented to him initially. The Complainant was represented by his Union Representative at the final disciplinary outcome meeting. The Complainant did not lodge any internal appeal of his dismissal and has failed to provide any evidence that he did lodge an internal appeal. The bond of trust was broken with the Complainant after these incidents came to light and the company considered it gross misconduct.

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act. The Relevant Section of the Act to the claim is Section 6 which states

“6.1. 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. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a) the employee's membership, or proposal that he or another person become a member, of, or his engaging in activities on behalf of, a trade union or excepted body under the Trade Union Acts, 1941 and 1971, where the times at which he engages in such activities are outside his hours of work or are times during his hours of work in which he is permitted pursuant to the contract of employment between him and his employer so to engage,

(b) the religious or political opinions of the employee,

(c) civil proceedings whether actual, threatened or proposed against the employer to which the employee is or will be a party or in which the employee was or is likely to be a witness,

(d) criminal proceedings against the employer, whether actual, threatened or proposed, in relation to which the employee has made, proposed or threatened to make a complaint or statement to the prosecuting authority or to any other authority connected with or involved in the prosecution of the proceedings or in which the employee was or is likely to be a witness, ...