Case Number: ADJ-00026225. Workplace Relations Commission.
| Docket Number | ADJ-00026225 |
| Hearing Date | 06 March 2020 |
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
In accordance 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 is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and has submitted that he was unfairly selected for redundancy (CA-00033422-001) |
|
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 10th August 2017 in the role of accounts administrator. The Complainant was paid €2,583.00 gross (€2,177,81 net) per month for 35 hours worked. In his role with the Respondent Company the Complainant believed his key contributions included a complete process review of existing procedures for posting invoices, day to day accounts process including submitting returns to revenue, creating a new method for raising invoices using batch import files resulting in increased productivity and accuracy, creating new ways of submitting VAT and Vat Information Exchange Systems (VIES) returns and implementing new invoicing and return processes in conjunction with the IT director. These systems were used until the time of the Complainants dismissal, and he believed during this period there were no issues with revenue in relation to overdue or inaccurate returns The Complainants first annual performance review was in May 2018 with a Director and he was given positive feedback and received a 10% pay increase due to his performance and the success of the new systems and this was the maximum pay rise allowed. In the course of his employment the Complainant attended a day course on GDPR compliance and then had a key role implementing new GDPR processes in the office. The Complainant attended an anti-money laundering seminar in the Department of Justice and playedakeyroleintheanti-moneylaunderingauditwhichwasconductedbythe Departmentof Justice.The Complainant commenced studying for the IPASS payroll qualification in May 2019 and this was sponsored by the company. Further, the Complainant voluntarily took on VIES returns which relate to services renderedoverseasandaredueeverythreemonths. The Complainant had his second annual performance review in June 2019 with a Director, and received positive feedback in relation to, inter alia, process improvement, good performance and expense knowledge improvements. He was also asked to start working towards starting a project management course. The Complainant, in the course of this review, highlighted opportunities to further improve the accuracy of invoicing spread sheets. The Complainant was informed that due to a decline in business he would not be receiving a pay rise and he accepted that rationale. In the course of the Complainants employment a staff productivity tracker was introduced in July 2019 for all staff and the Complainant would have to log every task undertaken on a daily basis, how long these tasks took to complete and the priority of the tasks. In October 2019 it was evident that no other staff members apart from the Complainant and the office manager were updating these trackers. The Complainant was informed onthe3rdofSeptember2019by the Director thathe hadcreateda"GANTT"Chartwhichwasfor his specificroleandlistedoutsomemonthlytasks. The Complainant requested a meeting with the Director and the Office Manager as he believed he was being singled out from his other colleagues as he now had two separate trackers. However, the Complainant was reassured the Directors had no concerns in relation to his performance. The Complainant was further advisedthathewouldbetheonlystaffmemberwhowouldbecompletingthis"GANTT" Chart on a trial basis and if it was effective it would be introduced to other staff members. The Complainant stated he continued in his role and facilitated the Respondent, inter alia, by making video tutorials for colleagues and train staff members. On the 11th December 2019 the Complainant along with other employees were informed by the Directors for the Respondent that their roles were at risk of being made redundant and any staff member who wished to apply for voluntary redundancy may do so before the 18th of December 2019. They were informed the selection would be made based on a selection matrix but they were not provided with the detail on how each category of the matrix would be evaluated. The Complainant was extremely anxious and concerned about the pending redundancies and requested a meeting with the directors so he could ask some more questions and receive more information. The Complainant met with two of the Directors on the 12th December 2019 and was informed, inter alia, that possibly 2 employees would be made redundant. The roles being made redundant would be based on the matrix provided by the Department of Employment and ultimately the Directors will make the decision based on the scores from the matrix of each employee. The Complainant informed the Respondent that he would not be making an application for voluntary redundancy as he enjoyed his roles and further advised that he could not afford to be made redundant due to family commitments. The Complainant was concerned that the scores that would be given in the scoring matrix could only be based upon the subjective opinion of the Directors The Complainant was informed on the 18th December 2019 by a Director that his role was being made redundant and that he would not be required to work his notice. The Complainant was handed a letter informing him of his redundancy and he was advised to leave the office with immediate effect. The Complainant was extremely distressed and shocked by the manner in which he was informed he was being made redundant and was further distressed he was not afforded the opportunity to prepare for said meeting or bring a representative. The Complainant contacted the Respondent on the 20th December 2019 and sought a detailed rationale on the decision behind his redundancy and also made a GDPR data request for all information that was on his file. The Complainant was sent a copy of the selection matrix but was not given any details on how these numbers were arrived at nor what they were based upon. In response to the matrix scores, the Complainant submitted he received lower scores, than the other employees, for performance however he believed this contradicted the feedback he received in both performance reviews especially as his job role was unique, he was required to work on his own initiative, he managed tasks and time frames and all objectives were completed in full and on time. The Complainant received a lower score for skills and experience, than other employees, and it was stated he was competent in mostaspects but required some supervision. The Complainant submitted this was untrue as he did not have to be supervised and was fully competent in his role. Further, his skill set included advanced IT knowledge, sage experience and customer service experience and he was consistently up-skilling. Further, in relation to working under his own initiative heading he was scored competent in his current role and also brought new ideas and improvements. The Complainant submitted this contradicted the scoring he was given for skills and experience . The Complainant requested on the 23rd January 2020 hard copies of all documents on file in relation to himself along with electronic or paper communication in hard copy form to include all email and letter correspondence. The Respondent replied on the 24th February 2020 but the Complainant believed there were certain omissions. The Complainant renewed his original request to include all email and letter correspondence. However, the Respondent replied on the 25th February 2020 stating that they did not find that any emails he had sent or received whilst working with the Respondent were in the scope of personal data and attached email correspondence from his personal email. The Complainant had the expectation that pursuant to section 4 of the Data Protection Acts, he would receive a copy of any information kept about him on computer or in manual form, in relation to him , his employment, terms and conditions and any communication issued by email or letter either sent or received in relation to the above. The Complainant submitted the selection criteria was not reasonable and was not applied in a fair manner and after his request for a more detailed rationale, the justification for his dismissal was not explained. The Respondent did not act reasonably when dismissing the Complainant as he was not provided with adequate consultation before the decision was made. The Respondent did not consider or communicate any options including possible alternatives to avoid redundancies. The Complainant submitted that during the process there was minimal communication along with the absence of consultation. The Complainant was not provided with the process or guidance on how to appeal the decision and no support was offered to... |
To continue reading
Request your trial