Case Number: ADJ-00023478. Workplace Relations Commission.
| Docket Number | ADJ-00023478 |
| Hearing Date | 19 February 2020 |
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023478
Parties:
|
|
Complainant |
Respondent |
|
Anonymised Parties |
A General Operative |
A Manufacturing Company |
Complaint:
|
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-00030053-001 |
02/08/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
|
The complainant commenced employment on 25 September 1997 and he was dismissed by the respondent on 6 June 2019.
During this hearing, submissions were substantial with copious volume of documentation referenced and, whilst I will not be referring to every event and email or reference every case law presented, I have taken into account all the submissions including oral and written made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence presented at the hearing.
The following is a brief summary of the chronological events: August 2015 the complainant sustained an injury and a period of absence ensued. Early 2016 the complainant was moved to work in a training room March 2016 the complainant reminded the respondent of a pre-existing eye complaint. April 2016 the complainant was advised that his position was to be made redundant. May 2016 a conciliation conference took place regarding the respondent’s rationalisation agreement Between 2015-2017 the complainant attended various health specialists Between 2016- 2017 ongoing meetings between SIPTU and the respondent to resolve matters March 2017 mediation between the parties in an effort to resolve matters but no resolution March 2017 complainant raised a grievance that 2 employees had personalised issues with the complainant October 2017 complainant advised the grievance was not upheld November 2017 complainant appealed decision of grievance November 2017 complainant advised that his appeal of the grievance decision was not upheld April 2018 the complainant lodged a claim under the Industrial Relations Act to the WRC about his grievance. November 2018 a WRC Hearing was to be held but discussions took place between the parties and the complaint was withdrawn. November 2018-April 2019 ongoing discussions between the complainant and respondent to reach an agreement. 26 April 2019 the respondent advised the complainant an agreement between them could not be executed owing to the complainant’s behaviour 3 May 2019 the complainant advised he was fit to return to work 3 May 2019 the respondent advised that they were not in a position to confirm a return to work date 14 May 2019 the complainant arrived at work 16 May 2019 the respondent proposed seeking one final meeting to finalise an agreement. 17 May 2019 the complainant sought clarification on the agreement. 6 June 2019 the complainant was dismissed 19 June 2019 the complainant requested an appeal of the dismissal 5 July 2019 the respondent advised that the matter was finalised.
|
|
The respondent confirmed that the complainant had been dismissed and the respondent’s history with the complainant was submitted and is referenced in the background of this decision. It was submitted that the respondent had made efforts to engage with the complainant to reach agreement but it was apparent that the complainant had no wish to meaningfully engage in the process. The respondent submitted that they had provided a significant level of support to the complainant over the years with various medical professionals, creating a role to allow the complainant to remain in gainful employment, engaging with the complainant to resolve his grievances and to hear his appeal of same, attending and paying for an external mediator which was chosen by the complainant’s representative and attending WRC hearings. The complainant’s failed to recognise his unreasonable behaviour which ultimately led to a fundamental breakdown in relationships.
It was the respondent’s submission that a reasonable employer, in the same position and circumstances, would have acted the same as at the core of any contractual relationship is trust and confidence which did not exist in this instant case. The respondent had insufficient confidence in the complainant’s ability to behave in a manner which was conductive to an effective employment relationship which goes to the root of the contract of employment.
A high level of support had been provided to the complainant but the complainant failed to adhere to reasonable instructions and efforts and despite mediation to resolve the complainant’s grievances and a full investigation into his disputes, the complainant’s behaviour was so unreasonable that the respondent had to withdraw proposed terms of agreement. The complainant’s behaviour was such that he had become very difficult to manage and was consuming an inordinate amount of management time. In effect, the bond of trust between the complainant and the respondent had completely broken down and the only reasonable option was summary dismissal.
It was further submitted that reinstatement was not appropriate in the current circumstances owing to the break down in the relationship between the parties and downsizing within the organisation. The respondent also submitted that the complainant had failed to expand his job search beyond his area of expertise and it was unreasonable for the complainant to remain unemployed when the economy is at near full employment.
Case law cited included Looney & Co Ltd v Looney UD 843/1984, Structured Finance Management Ltd v Vadym Kakini UDD181, Murray v Meath County Council UD 43/1978, Sheehan Continental Administration Co, Burke v Superior Express Ltd. |
To continue reading
Request your trial