OCS One Complete Solution Ltd (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation) v Bogumil Puka

CourtLabour Court (Ireland)
Judgment citation (vLex)[2020] 2 JIEC 1229
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.UDD2010 ADJ-00012985 CA 00017079-001

Labour Court




ADJ-00012985 CA 00017079-001

OCS One Complete Solution Ltd (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
Bogumil Puka

Chairman: Mr Foley

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Ms Treacy



1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.ADJ-00012985 CA 00017079-001.


2. The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 21 January 2019 in accordance with Section 8(A) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 January 2020. The following is the Determination of the Court:-


This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by Bogumil Puka (the Appellant) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer in his complaint made under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 against his former employer OCs One Complete Solution Limited (the Respondent) that he had been unfairly dismissed.


The Appellant transferred in to the Respondent company on 27 th October 2014 and his service was continuous since 8 th August 2011. The Appellant was employed as a security officer.


The Appellant contends that he was constructively dismissed by the Respondent. The Respondent submits that the Appellant willingly resigned his employment on 18 th September 2017.


The Adjudication Officer found the Appellant's complaint not to be well founded.


The fact of dismissal is in dispute.


Summary of the Appellant's case


It is the Appellant's case that he has had a range of issues with the Respondent since he became an employee of the Respondent following a transfer of undertakings in 2014. He said that he had made a number of complaints internally and under statute to address what he claimed were failures on the part of the Respondent to afford him his statutory rights. He submitted that he had been involved in three incidents at work where, in the course of his duties, he had suffered injury. The last such incident occurred on 29 th June 2017. He submitted that the Respondent may not be compliant with their obligations under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.


The Appellant submitted that, at the end of July 2017, he and another employee had discovered that ‘Mall Security’ had received a pay increase in June. He submitted that this matter was raised with a manager of the Respondent and that the increase was included in his August pay. However, he submitted that his hours of work were cut from 45 hours per week to 39 hours per week on average at about the same time.


He submitted that he had tendered his notice in September 2017. He said that the Respondent's behaviour during his employment was so unreasonable as to mean that he had ‘had enough’ and had left his employment as a result.


He submitted that he had raised no grievance as regards the matters giving rise to the termination of his employment. He submitted that he had issues as regards the conduct of a senior manager, Ms LO'N, but he could not see how he could raise a grievance against a senior manager to a manager at the same level. He submitted that he had sought engagement with a manager who was senior to Ms LO'N but had been unsuccessful.


The Appellant submitted that he had not received a letter which the Respondent contends had issued on 25 th September 2017 seeking a meeting with him.


He stated when questioned by the Court that he had been unable to take up employment since the termination of his employment because of illness.


Summary of the Respondent's case.


The Respondent submitted that no dismissal of the Appellant took place. The Appellant had been engaged as a security officer on a 40 hour per week contract by the Respondent since his transfer in October 2014. On 18 th September 2018 the Appellant submitted his resignation letter giving one month's notice. In that letter he cited several issues as giving rise to his resignation including many issues which had been dealt with at the Labour Relations Commission, the Workplace Relations Commission, the Labour Court and the Civil Courts. Following receipt of the Appellant's resignation letter the Respondent wrote to the Appellant on 25 th September 2017 seeking a meeting. The Appellant however did not respond to that letter or...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT