Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
Employee Requested to Return Organisational Property Unfairly Dismissed
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002315
The Complainant alleged he was dismissed without notice and fair procedure. The Complainant further alleged he never received a contract of employment, worked excessive hours and did not receive his statutory rest breaks.
The Claimant stated that an incident took place between himself and his supervisor. He was ordered to return organisational property in his possession. The Complainant’s brother gave evidence that when he arrived to collect him that the supervisor was shouting at the Claimant as there was a dispute over the organisational property to be returned. He confirmed that the situation was very tense. A more Senior Manager contacted the Complainant in regard to this incident and arranged to meet and apologised for the incident and asked him to consider returning to his job.
The Respondent submitted that the Claimant was not dismissed but rather resigned from his position. It was further submitted that the Claimant accosted his supervisor outside his office regarding his role and it was stated that he then handed the keys to his supervisor and left.
In regard to a written contract, the Respondent could not recall whether the Claimant received one but submitted a copy of a standard contract that is given to staff.
In regard to breaks/rest periods and excessive hours, the Respondent stated that details or evidence had not been presented by the Complainant to what alleged breaches, if any, took place.
The Adjudicating Officer in determination of its decision decided that on the balance of probability that the Claimant formed the opinion that he was dismissed. However, this did not take place in a cool, calm and collected situation and therefore the Claimant had contributed to this situation. The Adjudicating Officer found the claim of dismissal without notice to be well founded and awarded the sum of €10,000.00 in compensation for lack of fair procedure. In regard to not having received written terms of employment The Adjudicating Officer found the claim well founded and awarded €600.00 in compensation.
In regards to the alleged failure by the Respondent to comply with statutory break periods and excessive hours worked, the Claimant did not submit specific instances or details for this claim. However, the 1997 Act places the onus on the employer to maintain records, which in the absence of providing such records, the sum of €1,000.00 was awarded in compensation.
A dispute arose in this instance as to whether the Complainant had been dismissed or simply left and resigned as alleged by the Respondent. Given the circumstances, the Adjudication Officer, found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed as alleged following the dispute which arose and that the Respondent had simply dismissed the Complaint without recourse to fair procedure by virtue of simply requesting the Complainant return the organisational property in his possession. In addition, in the absence of any working time records to demonstrate compliance with the regulations as they relate to working time and rest breaks, any Respondent was left in a very difficult position to rebut any claim which may arise in this regard.
Employee Unfair Dismissed – Clear CCTV Footage of Item not Paid for
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004127
The Respondent submitted that the Claimant was witnessed by security via CCTV exiting the store after her work shift with a bottle of wine in her handbag that had not been paid for. The Claimant was pursued outside the building by security, where she disclosed she had a bottle of wine in her handbag and had not paid for it.
She was placed on suspension pending an investigation. An investigation took place conducted by the Compliance Manager and Security Officer. The Claimant was accompanied by her Trade Union representative. A disciplinary hearing subsequently took place. The Complainant was dismissed. The decision was appealed the decision but was unsuccessful.
The Respondent submitted that a full and thorough investigation process took place. The Claimant clearly exited the shop with a bottle of wine and the Respondent deemed that her explanation was not in line with the CCTV footage and as such raised serious questions as to the truth of the matter. The Trade Union submitted on behalf of the Claimant that she had an exemplary employment record throughout her career, that the procedures were unfair and that the Claimant was denied her right to representation at the time of her suspension. It was further submitted that the Claimant did not receive supporting documentation regarding the very serious allegations in a timely manner. The Claimant also submitted that when she went to the office with the Security Officer she alleged it was said to her by him, “admit it, you stole the wine”, to which the Claimant replied “I did not, this was a genuine mistake.”
In determination of its decision, the Adjudicating Officer found that while the CCTV evidence confirmed that the Claimant did put a bottle of wine into her bag and she left the store without paying for it, it did not illustrate the intent of the Claimant. The Adjudicating Officer found the comment of the Security Officer “admit it, you stole the wine”, (which was denied by him) fell below the principles of natural justice required during an investigation process given the Security Officer was a member of the investigation panel and demonstrated that he had his mind made up that the claimant was guilty prior to conclusion of the investigation process.
The Adjudicating Officer found the Dismissal to be unfair, but found the Claimant contributed to her own dismissal and accordingly awarded her €4,000 in compensation in full and final settlement of her claim including notice.
The CCTV evidence used in this instance by the Respondent to demonstrate the Claimant left her place of work without paying for an item was not disputed. However, this case serves to illustrate the importance of adhering to fair and appropriate procedures in the investigation of and determination of an concerns / allegation which arise, which may result in dismissal arising. In addition, the Adjudicator, as illustrate in many other similar circumstances, appeared to take into significant consideration the fact that the Complainant was of long standing and of a previous exemplary record when finding the decision to dismiss to have been an unreasonable course of action to follow by the Employer.
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002315
The Complainant alleged he was dismissed without notice and fair procedure. The Complainant further alleged he never received a contract of employment, worked excessive hours and did not receive his statutory rest breaks.
The Claimant stated that an incident took place between himself and his supervisor. He was ordered to return organisational property in his possession. The Complainant’s brother gave evidence that when he arrived to collect him that the supervisor was shouting at the Claimant as there was a dispute over the organisational property to be returned. He confirmed that the situation was very tense. A more Senior Manager contacted the Complainant in regard to this incident and arranged to meet and apologised for the incident and asked him to consider returning to his job.
The Respondent submitted that the Claimant was not dismissed but rather resigned from his position. It was further submitted that the Claimant accosted his supervisor outside his office regarding his role and it was stated that he then handed the keys to his supervisor and left.
In regard to a written contract, the Respondent could not recall whether the Claimant received one but submitted a copy of a standard contract that is given to staff.
In regard to breaks/rest periods and excessive hours, the Respondent stated that details or evidence had not been presented by the Complainant to what alleged breaches, if any, took place.
The Adjudicating Officer in determination of its decision decided that on the balance of probability that the Claimant formed the opinion that he was dismissed. However, this did not take place in a cool, calm and collected situation and therefore the Claimant had contributed to this situation. The Adjudicating Officer found the claim of dismissal without notice to be well founded and awarded the sum of €10,000.00 in compensation for lack of fair procedure. In regard to not having received written terms of employment The Adjudicating Officer found the claim well founded and awarded €600.00 in compensation.
In regards to the alleged failure by the Respondent to comply with statutory break periods and excessive hours worked, the Claimant did not submit specific instances or details for this claim. However, the 1997 Act places the onus on the employer to maintain records, which in the absence of providing such records, the sum of €1,000.00 was awarded in compensation.
A dispute arose in this instance as to whether the Complainant had been dismissed or simply left and resigned as alleged by the Respondent. Given the circumstances, the Adjudication Officer, found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed as alleged following the dispute which arose and that the Respondent had simply dismissed the Complaint without recourse to fair procedure by virtue of simply requesting the Complainant return the organisational property in his possession. In addition, in the absence of any working time records to demonstrate compliance with the regulations as they relate to working time and rest breaks, any Respondent was left in a very difficult position to rebut any claim which may arise in this regard.
Employee Unfair Dismissed – Clear CCTV Footage of Item not Paid for
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004127
The Respondent submitted that the Claimant was witnessed by security via CCTV exiting the store after her work shift with a bottle of wine in her handbag that had not been paid for. The Claimant was pursued outside the building by security, where she disclosed she had a bottle of wine in her handbag and had not paid for it.
She was placed on suspension pending an investigation. An investigation took place conducted by the Compliance Manager and Security Officer. The Claimant was accompanied by her Trade Union representative. A disciplinary hearing subsequently took place. The Complainant was dismissed. The decision was appealed the decision but was unsuccessful.
The Respondent submitted that a full and thorough investigation process took place. The Claimant clearly exited the shop with a bottle of wine and the Respondent deemed that her explanation was not in line with the CCTV footage and as such raised serious questions as to the truth of the matter. The Trade Union submitted on behalf of the Claimant that she had an exemplary employment record throughout her career, that the procedures were unfair and that the Claimant was denied her right to representation at the time of her suspension. It was further submitted that the Claimant did not receive supporting documentation regarding the very serious allegations in a timely manner. The Claimant also submitted that when she went to the office with the Security Officer she alleged it was said to her by him, “admit it, you stole the wine”, to which the Claimant replied “I did not, this was a genuine mistake.”
In determination of its decision, the Adjudicating Officer found that while the CCTV evidence confirmed that the Claimant did put a bottle of wine into her bag and she left the store without paying for it, it did not illustrate the intent of the Claimant. The Adjudicating Officer found the comment of the Security Officer “admit it, you stole the wine”, (which was denied by him) fell below the principles of natural justice required during an investigation process given the Security Officer was a member of the investigation panel and demonstrated that he had his mind made up that the claimant was guilty prior to conclusion of the investigation process.
The Adjudicating Officer found the Dismissal to be unfair, but found the Claimant contributed to her own dismissal and accordingly awarded her €4,000 in compensation in full and final settlement of her claim including notice.
The CCTV evidence used in this instance by the Respondent to demonstrate the Claimant left her place of work without paying for an item was not disputed. However, this case serves to illustrate the importance of adhering to fair and appropriate procedures in the investigation of and determination of an concerns / allegation which arise, which may result in dismissal arising. In addition, the Adjudicator, as illustrate in many other similar circumstances, appeared to take into significant consideration the fact that the Complainant was of long standing and of a previous exemplary record when finding the decision to dismiss to have been an unreasonable course of action to follow by the Employer.
Note on WRC:
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our HR & Employment Law Support Services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Advice on all Employment Law, Industrial Relations and HR queries or issues
- Review, Development and Implementation of Contracts of Employment and Employee Policies and Procedures
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment, Conducting Disciplinary Meetings
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice
- Organisational Management or Change Management Initiatives – including review / development of Performance Appraisal / Management Systems and Organisational Development
www.adarehrm.ie
