Case Number: ADJ-00027582. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00027582
• Hearing Date: 05 November 2020
• Date: 01 January 2021
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Respondent: A Retail Store

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027582

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Sales Assistant	A Retail Store

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts	CA-00035190-001	11/03/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00035190-002	11/03/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00035190-003	11/03/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00035190-004	11/03/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/11/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

These complaints and this dispute were submitted to the WRC on March 11th 2020 and, in accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, they were assigned to me by the Director General. Due to the closure of the WRC as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic, a hearing was delayed until November 5th 2020. On that date, I conducted a hearing using remote video conferencing and I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints.

The complainant represented himself and was accompanied by his father. On the respondent’s side, two directors attended the hearing, as did the manager of the store where the complainant worked. One of the directors was the main spokesperson for the respondent.

At the hearing, it became apparent that complaint number CA-00035190-004 is a duplicate of CA-00035190-002, under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and this complaint was withdrawn.

Background:

The respondent is a retail business that sells a well-known clothing brand. The complainant commenced work with them in a shopping centre outlet on October 24th 2019. He worked 20 hours a week and he earned €10.50 per hour. He was dismissed 19 weeks later on Monday, March 9th 2020. He had failed to turn up for work the previous Saturday. He claims that his dismissal was unfair. He also claims that he didn’t get any notice of his dismissal and finally, he claims that he never received a statement setting out the terms and conditions of his employment.

CA-00035190-001: Complaint under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 Summary of Complainant’s Case:

At the hearing, the complainant said that he went out with friends on Friday, March 6th and he woke up the following morning feeling unwell. He said that he was due to be in work at 1.00pm and he sent a text message to a supervisor to let him know that he wouldn’t be in. The complainant was at work on Monday, March 9th and he said that the store manager told him that he was being let go. He said that the manager said something like “we can’t let it slide this time” and that he couldn’t trust the complainant not to be absent again. The complainant said that he spoke to another manager, who he said was the “in-store manager” and he asked him why he was being dismissed. He said that the reason was for gross misconduct and that there would be no investigation. The complainant said that he had a conversation with the store manager in January 2020. He said that he was told that his performance was satisfactory and he got the impression that he would be offered a permanent job. Although he was dismissed in March 2020, in August that year, the complainant said that he asked for a formal termination letter and he received a letter on September 17th confirming that he had been dismissed because he had not passed his probation.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

In advance of this hearing on November 5th 2020, the managing director sent a letter to the WRC setting out the reason for the complainant’s dismissal. He said that, in accordance with a clause in his contract of employment, the company was entitled to dismiss the complainant during his probation, without a reason. The letter said that the complainant was issued with a contract of employment on October 31st 2019. During his probation, they decided that the complainant was not a suitable fit for the company. At the hearing itself, another director confirmed that the complainant was not dismissed for gross misconduct. He said that during his probation, they concluded that the complainant was not suitable for their business. He said that they reached that conclusion at the end of December or early January. When he didn’t show up for work on March 7th, having texted a supervisor to say that he had been out the night before, the managing director said that this was certainly a factor in their decision to let him go. The managing director accepted that the manager of the store manager had a conversation with the complainant in January and that he told him that his performance was satisfactory, but he said that “it wasn’t on” not to come to work for his shift at 1.00pm on Saturday, March 7th. He said that it is not the practice of their company to let someone go for a simple misdemeanour, but that they had concerns that the complainant’s absences would be ongoing. The store manager said that staff know that if they can’t come to work, that he is the person who should be contacted. On March 7th, the complainant informed a part-time supervisor. He was also absent on Saturday, December 21st 2019, which was one of the busiest shopping days of the year. The director said that in January 2020, the store manager told the...