A Former Employee v A Garage [2020]
Decision Number: ADJ-00014328
Published on: 11/06/2020
Issues Covered:
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background

The Complainant, who was recruited from Poland, commenced employment with the Respondent on the 27th September 2016.  The Complainant worked for the Respondent until he was informed of his dismissal on the 23rd November 2017 and subsequently ceased employment with the Respondent on the 15th December, 2017.

The Respondent denied the accusation that the Complainant had been unfairly dismissed and stated that it was seeking a qualified Cotech who had an excellent understanding of the English language.  The Respondent stated that it considered the Complainant’s English language to be an issue and they also had a problem with the speed of his work. The Respondent stated that it gave the Complainant every opportunity and time to improve but this never happened. Furthermore,  the Respondent stated that they were a small company and that from a business point of view it could not allow the situation to continue in terms of the Complainant’s level of English and productivity.

The Complainant claimed that in relation to his dealings with the Respondent, he was never approached by the Manager about any work related difficulties and that  his performance and level of English were evident within the three month probationary period and that notwithstanding, he was retained as an employee after that. The Complainant also added that the Respondent had failed to provide any evidence of his alleged performance difficulties or any evidence of work not completed.

The Adjudication Officer was satisfied that there were procedural defects in the Complainant’s case. The court noted that the Complainant was not advised or forewarned in advance that he may be dismissed from his employment and nor was he advised in advance of that meeting of the specific charges or allegations of misconduct upon which his dismissal may be based. Upon finding that the Respondent had not rebutted the presumption of unfair dismissal, the Adjudication Officer considered the complaint to be well founded. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant a sum of €7,000.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/october/adj-00014328.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 11/06/2020
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →