Case Number: ADJ-00009519. Workplace Relations Commission

• Judgment Date: 01 August 2018
• Year: 2018
• Docket Number: ADJ-00009519
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A General Manager v A Hotel

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009519

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A General Manager	A Hotel

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00012498-001	14/07/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/12/2017 and 16/04/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Procedure:

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

Background:

This case concerns a claim for unfair dismissal. The Complainant worked as a General Manager of the Respondent Hotel. He submitted a Protected Disclosure on 3 April 2017 and submitted that he was dismissed because of this act. The Respondent rejected the claim out of hand. I adjourned the case on December 19, 2017 as I was not satisfied I had sufficient detail or documentation to inquire into the complaint. I sought written submissions from both parties. The hearing resumed on 16 April 2018. Both parties made written and oral submissions.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent runs a Hotel and apartment complex. The Respondent outlined that the complainant presented with circumstances during his employment which placed the Hotel at risk and served as the reason for his summary dismissal on June 19, 2017.The Complainant was to take instruction from Mr A, a company director. The Respondent challenged the presentation of a protected disclosure by the complainant in accordance with Section 5 of the Protected Disclosure Act, 2014. The Respondent Solicitor submitted a written statement wherein, he queried the nature of the protected disclosure relied on by the complainant? It was accepted that the complainant had raised concerns regarding Mr A’s financial understanding of the business. However, Mr A is a qualified accountant and queries regarding his competence in his role did not match the narrow criteria provided for in Section 5 of the Act. The Respondent saw the comments as defamatory instead. The Respondent contended that the complainant had not specifically delineated the financial irregularities complained of. The Company Director was entitled to adjust in the running of the company. The Respondent relied on a booklet of email correspondence exchanged between the parties during the 9-month period of employment as a demonstration of the General Manager/ Company Director employment relationship. The Respondent outlined that the Hotel had not been in the hands of a National Agency and that both the complainant and Mr A were charged with running the business and signing off transactions. the Complainant was given access to the business bank accounts. Mr A established a record of a €33,000 deficit in the account in early April 2017 and he prioritised this for the complainant’s attention. Evidence of Mr A: Company Accountant/Director Mr A worked as an offsite Accountant and company Director. He shared the responsibility with the Complainant for running the business. He gave reasons for the complainant’s dismissal as a breach of trust and gross misconduct. Mr A had received very negative calls from the hotel once the complainant went on his family holiday at the end of May 2017. He was alarmed and lost confidence in him as General Manager when he received a damning report from a Duty Manager during her resignation. He was surprised that the complainant did not return to the company in the face of such turmoil. He issued the complainant a notice of suspension by email. Mr A stepped back into the Managers role on June 15. The staff were on the verge of leaving or mutiny. He met with the complainant on his return on 19 June. He explained that two key members of staff had left and has raised issues on the lack of management at the business. He told the complainant that serious issues had arisen on staff contracts, lack of liquor licence and that the Hotel was not sufficiently accredited. Mr A expressed real concerns regarding Fire and Food safety at the premises and feared the consequences for the 40 staff and their welfare. During cross examination, Mr A stated that he could not recall a conversation in the Hotel restaurant one week before his departure on holidays. In conclusion, the respondent argued that the Complainant had not satisfied the criteria for the submission of a protected disclosure and it followed that the claim for unfair dismissal could not succeed. The Respondent argued that the complainant had placed the Hotel in a significant risk situation and offered a report compiled by his successor as documentary proof of this.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant worked as a General Manager at the Respondent Hotel for a 9-month period from 16 September 2016 until his employment was terminated by the Respondent on grounds of poor performance on 19 June 2017. He worked a 50-hour week and nett pay was €878.00 per week. He secured new work on 14 August ,2017 on less favourable terms and tenure. He sought the remedy of compensation. The Complainant made oral and written submissions in support of his case. The Complainant submitted an outline of his case. He stated that he had accepted the position of General Manager at the Hotel having received assurances that the Hotel was trading well and his focus was to be directed to operational matters. During his initial months of employment, he worked hard but had concerns on a notable lack of accounting structures and” the irrational actions and methods of management “of an offsite Director, Mr A. The Hotel also had a US based Director, whom he met at the hotel for the first time in December , 2016 .The Complainant identified that he made a protected disclosure to this Director at that meeting .He raised concerns on the financial standing of the business and the US Director told him he trusted the Off-site Director, Mr A , but to keep...