Background:

The Complainant, a plumber, was employed by the Respondent drainage company from 20 May 2019 to 3 May 2023. On 3 May 2023 the Complainant attended a work site with a colleague to complete a job. The Respondent and Complainant agreed that the Complainant arrived late to the work site, failed to take photographs of the job and failed complete a report for the job, despite having been instructed repeatedly in the past to do so. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent’s manager called the Complainant around mid-day and summarily dismissed the Complainant and his accompanying colleague, saying, (in so many words), “get the vans back to the yard… get out of my business… I’m done with the two of you.” The Respondent said no such words were said, although the Respondent’s manager agreed he was angry and used “inappropriate” language in the phone call. The Complainant then alleged the manager made further phone calls during which the manager made threats to the life of the Complainant. The Complainant used the company van to drive home to Limerick, as opposed to returning it to the Respondent’s premises in Tipperary.

The Complainant maintained that he was dismissed by the Respondent and therefore was unable to return the van. The Respondent said no words which could be reasonably construed as a dismissal were spoken by the manager and in any case, efforts were made after the fact by the office administrator to tell the Complainant that he was still in employment and was entitled to use the grievance procedures to resolve any dispute. By refusing to engage in this or work further the Respondent alleged that the Complainant had resigned, and therefore was not eligible for relief for unfair dismissal or a statutory payment under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.

Outcome:

Referring to case law on the topic, the Adjudication Officer found that the communication between the Complainant his manager were ambiguous, and that there was a conflict of evidence between the parties on the precise words used. Taking into account the efforts on the part of the Respondent’s office manager to clarify the position, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant did not discharge the burden of proving that a dismissal occurred, and as a result, his complaints were not well-founded.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Statements such as “I’m done with you” by an employer can be construed as a dismissal. In such circumstances an employer should quickly and definitively clarify in writing that this was not their intention to avoid unfair dismissal.

The full case is here:
 https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/september/adj-00045913.html