Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005197
Complainant dismissed on Maternity Leave awarded €6,500 compensation
The Complainant alleged that when on maternity leave she was unfairly dismissed from employment. While on maternity leave she received a call from the Senior HR Manager about a relocation offer. Following the call, she received an email from the HR Manager asking if there were any questions about the relocation offer.
She sent an e-mail to the HR Manager stating her surprise about a relocation offer and asked for more information about it. She also informed the HR Manager that she was out of the jurisdiction for the month of July and would not be reachable at that time. The Complainant received a response from the HR Manager stating the reasons for relocation but did not receive any details about the actual relocation itself.
The HR manager gave her a timeframe to reply. The Complainant did not have a chance to read the e-mail and to respond as she was traveling, which she had informed her HR Manager about previously.
The Complainant subsequently received an e-mail from the HR Manager stating that because she had not received a reply to her offer on or before the deadline her employment was being terminated. The letter of termination stated that the Complainant had confirmed on the 1st of July that she was not accepting the relocation offer, which the Complainant argued was not the case given she never had a chance to accept or reject the relocation offer.
The Respondent stated that it was originally thought that the Complainant could work from home but upon reflection the Respondent decided that the role would be moved to Cork. The Respondent stated that the role was not made redundant and that is why the Complainant was not offered a redundancy payment.
In determination of its decision, the Adjudicating Officer found that the Respondent’s communications with the Complainant during her period of protected leave to be inappropriate. The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had requested some information in relation to the relocation offer but none was forthcoming. The Respondent, by giving the Complainant a short deadline, had forced a decision, while on maternity leave and without any specific information about the offer of relocation. No proper procedures were followed by the Respondent.
At the time of the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that she had commenced employment on a part time basis in a lecturing capacity and had also secured a second part time role as a University researcher. Having given consideration to all of the facts, the Adjudicating Officer awarded compensation to the Complainant for the sum of € 6,500.00.
Whilst legitimate organisational reasons may have existed for the relocation, a failure by the Employer to engage in an appropriate process / procedure and advise the Respondent of the reasons / rationale for the relocation, including an apparent failure to advise the Complainant her employment was at risk in the event she did not agree to the relocation offer unsurprisingly did not serve the Employer well.
Whilst not directly referred to by the Adjudication Officer, the fact that the Complainant was on Maternity leave at the time of the dismissal, (which provides for statutory protections as part of a return to work), would also have been a consideration. This case serves to illustrate to all Employers that in instances of dismissal or potential dismissal, the two key ‘tests’ which must be met by an Employer refer to an adherence to fair procedures and the decision to dismiss being viewed as fair and reasonable considering all of the circumstances.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00003421
Complainant unfairly dismissed awarded €45,250 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts
The Respondent was employed by a voluntary body from December 2007. Despite a number of relocations and issues arising from service funding issues during the period of the financial crisis, the Complainant worked until late 2013. Issues of service provision, resource allocations and interpretations of duties with his new Manager Mr. XA began to accumulate. In April 2014, issues had continued to persist and the Complainant commenced sick leave with work related stress and mental exhaustion. The Complainant attended for appointment with an Occupational Health Consultant at the request of the Respondent. The Complainant was deemed to be fit for work in a further two months and recommend a meeting with his Managers to discuss and resolve his work related issues.
Various dates for meetings were proposed and extensive correspondence took place between UNITE and the Respondent. UNITE lodged a complaint under the Industrial Relations Acts alleging failure by the Respondent to engage properly in discussions regarding the return to work of the Complainant.
A mediation exercise took place with an Independent Mediator but was somewhat overshadowed by an “off the record” meeting between UNITE and the Chairman of the Respondent. This proved inconclusive as the Respondent’s parent funding Organisation would not sanction any additional expenditure on an exit package.
The Respondent wrote to the Complainant instructing a Return to Work and failure to do so would be deemed a “Frustration of Contract” leading to an ending of the employment relationship.
The Complainant employment was ended by letter on the 23rd February 2016. The Complainant appealed the decision and an Appeal hearing was held on the 29th March 2016. It was unsuccessful.
The Complainant maintained that he had been dismissed without proper opportunities being afforded to have discussion regarding his return to work, and also was not provided with the correct notice.
The Respondent stated they had gone to extraordinary lengths to engage with the Complainant, had utilised the services of a respected HR Consultant and a recognised Mediator, and had engaged in protracted correspondence.
The Complainant had, by the date of the Hearing, secured an offer of employment with another employer. Under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 the Adjudicating Officer awarded the sum of €42,000 as Redress for the Unfair Dismissal.
In determination of its decision, the Adjudication found a frustration of contract did not occur in this instance. In summary, a frustration of contract applies where contractual obligations can no longer be performed as a result of circumstances beyond the control of either party. Given the fact that the Occupational Health Consultant had found the Complainant was fit to return to work following recommended mediation process and that proper discussions had not taken place with a view to reaching a solution and enabling the Complainant to return to work, the decision to dismiss was found to be unfair.
Complainant dismissed on Maternity Leave awarded €6,500 compensation
The Complainant alleged that when on maternity leave she was unfairly dismissed from employment. While on maternity leave she received a call from the Senior HR Manager about a relocation offer. Following the call, she received an email from the HR Manager asking if there were any questions about the relocation offer.
She sent an e-mail to the HR Manager stating her surprise about a relocation offer and asked for more information about it. She also informed the HR Manager that she was out of the jurisdiction for the month of July and would not be reachable at that time. The Complainant received a response from the HR Manager stating the reasons for relocation but did not receive any details about the actual relocation itself.
The HR manager gave her a timeframe to reply. The Complainant did not have a chance to read the e-mail and to respond as she was traveling, which she had informed her HR Manager about previously.
The Complainant subsequently received an e-mail from the HR Manager stating that because she had not received a reply to her offer on or before the deadline her employment was being terminated. The letter of termination stated that the Complainant had confirmed on the 1st of July that she was not accepting the relocation offer, which the Complainant argued was not the case given she never had a chance to accept or reject the relocation offer.
The Respondent stated that it was originally thought that the Complainant could work from home but upon reflection the Respondent decided that the role would be moved to Cork. The Respondent stated that the role was not made redundant and that is why the Complainant was not offered a redundancy payment.
In determination of its decision, the Adjudicating Officer found that the Respondent’s communications with the Complainant during her period of protected leave to be inappropriate. The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had requested some information in relation to the relocation offer but none was forthcoming. The Respondent, by giving the Complainant a short deadline, had forced a decision, while on maternity leave and without any specific information about the offer of relocation. No proper procedures were followed by the Respondent.
At the time of the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that she had commenced employment on a part time basis in a lecturing capacity and had also secured a second part time role as a University researcher. Having given consideration to all of the facts, the Adjudicating Officer awarded compensation to the Complainant for the sum of € 6,500.00.
Whilst legitimate organisational reasons may have existed for the relocation, a failure by the Employer to engage in an appropriate process / procedure and advise the Respondent of the reasons / rationale for the relocation, including an apparent failure to advise the Complainant her employment was at risk in the event she did not agree to the relocation offer unsurprisingly did not serve the Employer well.
Whilst not directly referred to by the Adjudication Officer, the fact that the Complainant was on Maternity leave at the time of the dismissal, (which provides for statutory protections as part of a return to work), would also have been a consideration. This case serves to illustrate to all Employers that in instances of dismissal or potential dismissal, the two key ‘tests’ which must be met by an Employer refer to an adherence to fair procedures and the decision to dismiss being viewed as fair and reasonable considering all of the circumstances.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00003421
Complainant unfairly dismissed awarded €45,250 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts
The Respondent was employed by a voluntary body from December 2007. Despite a number of relocations and issues arising from service funding issues during the period of the financial crisis, the Complainant worked until late 2013. Issues of service provision, resource allocations and interpretations of duties with his new Manager Mr. XA began to accumulate. In April 2014, issues had continued to persist and the Complainant commenced sick leave with work related stress and mental exhaustion. The Complainant attended for appointment with an Occupational Health Consultant at the request of the Respondent. The Complainant was deemed to be fit for work in a further two months and recommend a meeting with his Managers to discuss and resolve his work related issues.
Various dates for meetings were proposed and extensive correspondence took place between UNITE and the Respondent. UNITE lodged a complaint under the Industrial Relations Acts alleging failure by the Respondent to engage properly in discussions regarding the return to work of the Complainant.
A mediation exercise took place with an Independent Mediator but was somewhat overshadowed by an “off the record” meeting between UNITE and the Chairman of the Respondent. This proved inconclusive as the Respondent’s parent funding Organisation would not sanction any additional expenditure on an exit package.
The Respondent wrote to the Complainant instructing a Return to Work and failure to do so would be deemed a “Frustration of Contract” leading to an ending of the employment relationship.
The Complainant employment was ended by letter on the 23rd February 2016. The Complainant appealed the decision and an Appeal hearing was held on the 29th March 2016. It was unsuccessful.
The Complainant maintained that he had been dismissed without proper opportunities being afforded to have discussion regarding his return to work, and also was not provided with the correct notice.
The Respondent stated they had gone to extraordinary lengths to engage with the Complainant, had utilised the services of a respected HR Consultant and a recognised Mediator, and had engaged in protracted correspondence.
The Complainant had, by the date of the Hearing, secured an offer of employment with another employer. Under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 the Adjudicating Officer awarded the sum of €42,000 as Redress for the Unfair Dismissal.
In determination of its decision, the Adjudication found a frustration of contract did not occur in this instance. In summary, a frustration of contract applies where contractual obligations can no longer be performed as a result of circumstances beyond the control of either party. Given the fact that the Occupational Health Consultant had found the Complainant was fit to return to work following recommended mediation process and that proper discussions had not taken place with a view to reaching a solution and enabling the Complainant to return to work, the decision to dismiss was found to be unfair.
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
