Case Number: ADJ-00026601. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00026601
• Hearing Date: 15 September 2020
• Date: 01 October 2020
• Year: 2020
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026601

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A motor mechanic	A motor repair business.

Representatives Harry Carpendale HG Carpendale Solicitors Robert Coonan Robert Coonan Solicitors

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-00033894-001	20/01/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00033894-002	20/01/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00033894-003	20/01/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/09/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan

Procedure:

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

Background:

The Complainant was a permanent employee of the Respondent, the Complainant worked for the Respondent company from 15th November 2016 to 22nd August 2019. A period of approximately 3 years. The Respondent paid the Complainant €621.50 gross per week, with the Complainant taking home a net pay of €520.00. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 20th January 2020.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

BACKGROUND The background to these proceedings is the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent and worked as a mechanic at the Respondent’s premises. The Complainant claims redress on three grounds: - Unfair Dismissal-Section 8 Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. Pay – Section 27 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. Minimum Notice – Section 11 Minimum Notice Terms of Employment Act 1973. The three claims are interlinked insofar as the Complainant alleges that he was unfairly or summarily dismissed by his Employer the Respondent. The Complainant contends that evidence of the summary dismissal which is alleged to be unfair centres around an exchange of communications between Complainant and Respondent in or about the 22nd of August 2019. PARTICULARS OF INCIDENT The Respondent alleges that he received contact from the Complainant on Sunday the 11th August 2019. The Complainant indicated to the Respondent that he had a personal situation which might affect his work hours during the following number of days. He said that he wished to return to the Complainant’s premises to retrieve a phone charger and he wished to make the Complainant aware as the premises had a monitored alarm system. The Respondent was aware that the Complainant’s situation was sensitive and may have involved the hospitalisation of his partner who was pregnant. The Respondent took no issue with the Complainant indicating that he might have difficulty adhering to his work hours in the following week. The Complainant did come to work during that week. He worked for a period on 3 consecutive days being the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of that week. The Respondent will allege that the Complainant worked 16 hours that week but that, notwithstanding that this was 24 hours short of the Complainants usual working week, the Respondent paid the Complainant in full for that week. The Respondent went on to state that the payment of employees who are absent from work is discretionary. The Respondent’s witness stated that the Respondent Company endeavours to work on a goodwill basis with employees, and to grant them time off where required, in exchange for these employees generally try to work back any hours and, pay is not reduced accordingly. The Respondent gave evidence that there was a further conversation on Tuesday 13th August with the Complainant wherein the Complainant indicated that once he had organised domestic help (which his Mother was going to provide for him) he would make up as many of the hours as he could. The Complainant informed the Respondent that it was his intention to work a full week the week commencing Monday the 19th August. The working day commenced at 7.30 a.m. The Complainant did not come to work at that time, on Monday 19th August. The Respondent’s MD telephoned him at 8.00 a.m. There was no answer from the Complainant’s phone. At 10.00 a.m. the MD received a call from the Complainant who informed him that his help had let him down, the party in question (understood to be the Claimant’s Mother) had gone to Wexford and had not returned. The Complainant informed the MD that it did not look as if he would be able to go to work that day. The Respondent reminded...