Case Number: ADJ-00013749. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00013749
• Hearing Date: 12 June 2018
• Date: 01 October 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: An Accountant v A Food Distribution Company
• Respondent: A Food Distribution Company

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013749

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	An Accountant	A Food Distribution Company

Complaints:

Act	Complaints Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00018054-001	20/03/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00018054-002	20/03/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00018054-003	20/03/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00018054-004	20/03/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00018054-005	20/03/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/06/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The complainant was employed by the respondent as an accountant on the 13th February 2017 and his employment terminated on the 25th January 2018. He is claiming that he was unfairly dismissed, that he did not receive his contractual notice, the employer was in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977 in respect of the hours he worked and he did not receive written terms of his conditions of employment. The respondent submits that the complainant has not got one year’s service as required by the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Financial Controller following an interview with the General Manager. He had worked previously as a Finance Director in a number of companies. He did not receive a contract of employment. He was initially told that his hours of work were from 8am until 4pm and then they were changed by the respondent to 2pm until 10pm. When the complainant started work in the company it soon became apparent to him that the financial records were in serious arrears and operating on a day-to-day basis in a crisis management mode. The systems were defective and the technology was outdated. He recommended to the respondent that it would be necessary to move to a more efficient and transparent financial system. The General Manager never suggested to the complainant that there was any issue with how he managed the 2 IT systems. The complainant worked 12 to 14 hours per day to get the accounts up to date. The complainant persuaded the MD to recruit additional accounting staff but the staff recruited left within a short period. Over the first 6 months the complainant made significant progress with the accounts and regularly updated the MD on the progress he had made. He changed his hours to accommodate the respondent. On the 6th September 2071 the complainant was called to a meeting by the GM who told him he was unhappy with the way he dealt with staff. He said that he was dismissed but he did not receive his P 45. About a week later he received a call from the MD inviting him for coffee and following this he was reinstated. In the latter months of 2017, the complainant had to become heavily involved in the cash and stock procedures for the delivery van drivers. He met with the van drivers and followed up discrepancies with them. This involved him working up to 10pm or later when the last driver returned to the depot. On the 2nd January 2018, the complainant wrote to the MD complaining about his aggressive and bullying behaviour and the long hours he was expected to work. He requested a meeting to resolve the problems but no meeting took place. On the 24th January 2018, MD called him to a meeting about a report he had compiled and during the course of the meeting told him he was being dismissed immediately. The complainant submits that he was unfairly dismissed. He accepts that he was employed for less than a year with the respondent, but submits that at least one month’s notice should be implied into his contract. Although there was no written contract, it should be noted that it is common case that the complainant was employed as a financial controller. It was submitted that the legal precedents are clear, that is, in the absence of a specific term in a contract relating to notice, the greater the level of responsibility the longer the period of notice should be. I was referred to Berber v Dunnes Stores [2006] IEHC 327 and Tierney v Irish Meat Packers [1989] where the High Court held that a 6 months’ notice period was appropriate for a Group Credit Controller and the same approach was taken in the case of Carey v Independent Newspapers Limited [2004].

Summary of Respondent’s Case: ...