Case Number: ADJ-00025490. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00025490
• Date: 08 October 2020
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

Procedure:

In accordance 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:

On the 13th November 2019, the Union on behalf of the complainant, a Butcher submitted two mirror image complaints of unfair dismissal to the WRC, some 20 minutes apart. On 29 November 2019, the Union was notified that these complaints were to be blended into ADJ -25490. The Respondent subsequently raised jurisdictional issues in rebutting the claim. The case was first set for hearing on 1 April 2020 and was re-listed due to the national pandemic for 15 September 2020. The Respondent lodged two pre-hearing submissions both were copied to the complainant. The complainant filed a response to the Respondent submission dated 5 September 2020. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at hearing.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent operates a multi locational meat business and employs 60 staff. The complainant was unemployed on a permanent contract on 6 September 2018 and was dismissed with one weeks’ notice on 30 August 2019. He was paid €11.50 per hour for an average of 43.5-hour week. As a preliminary argument, the Respondent has challenged that the complainant held the requisite service to run a complaint of unfair dismissal and secondly denied that the dismissal was unfair. The respondent made a written submission dated 18 December 2019 and clarified that the complainant worked in a different shop to what was mentioned on his complaint form. The facts of the reason attributed to the dismissal were disputed. On 31 August 2019, the Respondent made a supplementary submission “for the hearing on 15 September 2020”. On this occasion, the respondent again disputed that the complainant had 12 months continuous service as he commenced work on 6 September 2018, was given notice on 30 August 2019 and finished on 5 September 2019. The facts surrounding dismissal were also contested. The Respondent attended the hearing on 15 September 2020 and both representatives were aggrieved by the nonappearance of the complainant but agreed to wait a period to allow for an appearance. Mr A, one of the owners of the company gave evidence that the complainant had worked well for the first 3 months of his employment, but his performance declined after this. He spoke to him on 6 to 7 occasions seeking an improvement, but no sustained improvement followed. He was troubled by the tapering off productivity. Mr A outlined the workings of the business which operated over 7 days. During August 2019, he was away on leave and his brother and co-owner, Mr B covered for him. On his return, Mr B recounted that the complainant had refused to cut meat past an early part of a Saturday afternoon despite further trading hours. Mr B told Mr A that he had to undertake the task of cutting himself and was stunned at the complainant’s high level of non-co-operation. This prompted a discussion amongst the three Owners the following week. They discussed the complainants lack of interest and his ability to continue to work throughout the day to the standard expected of a Butcher. In addition, he was viewed as demotivated and unresponsive to business peaks. They made the decision to give the complainant notice of termination on 30 August 2019. Mr A confirmed that he addressed the complainant on this decision, as he held the authority to dismiss, a power he had not exercised over 10 years. He told the complainant that things were not working out, he was not working on his own imitative and was inflexible and he was giving him a weeks’ notice of dismissal. The complainant did not challenge this and worked his notice and left. Mr A submitted that the company would have assisted him with a reference, but he did not ask. He understood he found new work shortly afterwards . The respondent agreed to forward the contract of employment and staff handbook post hearing and these were copied to the complainant. The respondent confirmed that the period of notice was paid, and the company had not considered any option short of dismissal. In response to the request submitted by the Union under section 14, the respondent said they were not au fait with dealing with Unions and would happily have addressed the complainant on the reasons for his dismissal if he had requested same. In response to the Adjudicators questions, the respondent confirmed that they had not maintained records of the conversations with the complainant or surrounding the decision taken to dismiss but were happy to give evidence of these. Dismissal was communicated verbally to the complainant. The Respondent by concluding that the complainant’s productivity had tapered off considerable. He had slipped back and any of the requests for improvement initiated by Mr A had gone unheeded to the point where the business was damaged by his overt non-co-operation on the day that Mr B was covering Mr as leave. Mr B found it distasteful to terminate the complainant’s employment, but he submitted that he had been left with no choice.

...