Fired pharma worker tried to slip back ‘under the radar’ when boss took holiday

A fired worker who tried to “slip himself back in under the radar” when his former boss went on his summer holiday has lost his unfair dismissal claim.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard that Obasanjo Olajubu turned up “as normal” at a medicines packaging plant run by Wasdell Europe Ltd in September 2022 – despite the fact that he had been dismissed two months earlier.

Mr Olajubu told the tribunal he worked ten days in the packaging plant that month before someone came to him and asked: “Are you not aware that you have been fired?”

He was giving evidence on his complaint against his former employer under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, which was rejected by the WRC in a decision published on Wednesday.

IDA gives Intel €30m in aid package

---

Insurance board’s Rosalind Carroll: ‘Soft tissue neck injuries are not coming as they would have before’

---

An attempt to buy the next election with a giveaway budget would be a gross miscalculation

---

The outlook for interest rate cuts is changing - so should Irish borrowers be worried?

---

Mr Olajubu has, however, secured €450 for a week’s notice pay, after Wasdell conceded a second complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

The company’s position was that Mr Olajubu was sacked for “poor performance, poor attendance and a bad attitude” before he had built up the full year’s service required to enjoy the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act.

A manager who gave evidence said the complainant’s performance “wasn’t great” and his attendance and “work ethic” were poor.

Could a Supreme Court decision have huge implications for workers in the gig economy?

Listen | 30:20

Mr Olajubu said he had been absent due to a traffic accident in June 2022 and experienced difficulties at work due to pain from a back injury when he tried to return.

In evidence, he said his manager told him in a phone call on July 5th that year that he should “stay at home until he was fit to work”.

However, the company’s position was that Mr Olajubu was dismissed verbally on that date.

The manager told the tribunal that he started to read the dismissal letter to the complainant over the phone and made it three-quarters of the way through the document before Mr Olajubu hung up on him.

The letter was not sent to the complainant due to an “administrative error”, the company said.

Mr Olajubu said he returned to work on Friday September 2nd, 2022, confirmed he was feeling better and was sent to the production line, where he worked nine more shifts up to September 13th.

He told the adjudicator that his access fob had not worked, but his supervisor had logged him in – the company’s position being that this had been done in July.

His manager, the company witness who gave evidence of firing him over the phone, had been absent on annual leave, and returned on the 13th, the tribunal was told.

The company witness said Mr Olajubu was then asked to leave the premises and warned by letter two days later that the management would call the gardaí if he returned.

However, it did pay him for the two weeks’ work in September as a “goodwill gesture”, it was submitted.

Adjudicator Niamh O’Carroll wrote that she was satisfied Mr Olajubu had been dismissed in July on the basis that his fob wasn’t working and he had been paid a sum in respect of outstanding annual leave that month.

“The timing of his reappearance at the respondent’s premises in September when [the manager] was on annual leave was not a coincidence. He should not have been there. I am satisfied that he knew that,” Ms O’Carroll wrote.

“He knew he had been dismissed but waited until [the manager] was out of the premises before he attempted to slip himself back in under the radar,” the adjudicator added.

As Mr Olajubu had only started with the company on 30th August, 2021, that left him with too little service to bring an Unfair Dismissal Claim, she wrote, rejecting the claim.

However, she noted the company’s admission that it had failed to give the complainant’s any notice pay, making an order for the payment of €450.