The claimant, an administrative training and development co-ordinator, fails in her claim for unfair dismissal as a result of her redundancy.
Employer, large multi-national engineering company-claimant responsible for administrative training and development co-ordinator role lending support to apprentice electricians employed by the company-organised internal executive courses in leadership management and skills enhancement-downturn in construction industry-large number of redundancies-claimant made redundant-company then advertised for 2 corporate human resource positions-company claimed claimant did not have necessary experience or requirements-paid her statutory redundancy and one month’s notice-also offered €10,000 ex-gratia payment-claimant declined to accept-claimant got massive shock at meeting advising she was to be made redundant-became emotional and did not speak at meeting-not allowed to retrain or accept another role-needed time to think about €10,000 offer-required to sign a waiver form-EAT had enormous sympathy for claimant-excellent worker-however, genuine company restructuring-genuine redundancy-no unfair selection for redundancy-respectful response by company to cross examination during EAT hearing-claimant traumatised by redundancy-may have affected her decision to accept ex gratia payment-claim under unfair dismissals acts fails-received her statutory redundancy entitlement-received her notice of termination-minimum notice and terms of employment acts claim fails also.
For claimant: Elaine Power BL, instructed by McMahon English solicitors
For respondent: Brian Gageby BL, instructed by William Fry solicitors
Decision published: 12th April, 2013
Read Full EAT decision here
General operative, who withdrew his appeal to his employer against his dismissal for gross misconduct, is awarded €18000 for unfair dismissal due to procedural defects in the investigation process.
General operative-felt unwell-went home-dismissed for gross misconduct-refused to answer questions in investigation-claimant contacted union representative-appealed decision to dismiss-withdrew appeal on union representative advice-claimed for unfair dismissal-investigation carried out by employer-did not inform claimant-did not give opportunity to partake in investigation-employer failed to tell claimant of his right to representation-investigator also acted as disciplinarian-procedural defects in process-sufficiently flawed and invalid-withdrawal of appeal on advice of union official reasonable-€18,000 for unfair dismissal-€800 awarded under Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts.
Decision published 8th November, 2012
For claimant: Grainne Duggan BL instructed by Anderson & Gallagher solicitors
For respondent: Noel O’Hanrahan, O’Hanrahan Lally solicitors
Read full decision of Employment Appeals Tribunal here
The EAT dismisses a claim for unfair dismissal by a supermarket sales assistant who had failed to engage with the employer and who effectively dismisses himself.
Sales assistant in supermarket-accident at work-sick leave-claimant failed to respond to letters-company tried to assist coming back to work-claimant went to UK for treatment-company failed to follow it’s own disciplinary procedure-not fatal as claimant did not respond to correspondence-claimant could not hold company accountable for failing to receive letters-claimant left messages with other employees-not sufficient-claimant should have written to personnel manager-Tribunal expects employer to behave reasonably-also expects employee to do likewise-employer acted as a reasonable employer-claimant frustrated his contract by failing to engage-claims under Unfair Dismissals Act and Minimum Notice and Terms of Employments Acts fail.
Decision published: 8th November, 2012
For claimant: Mr Oisin Clarke BL instructed by Ms Megan Shannon, Paul W Tracey solicitors
For respondent: Mr. David Farrell, IBEC
Read the full decision here
Employment Appeals Tribunal awards €15,300 to receptionist for unfair dismissal following dispute leading to receptionist’s dismissal. EAT decides that procedural defects in the employer’s disciplinary process included failure to give the receptionist opportunity to engage in investigation, failure to hold a proper disciplinary hearing, and failure to advise the claimant of her right to appeal dismissal.
Receptionist-budget accommodation provider-dispute over unpaid bill of guest-procedural defects in disciplinary procedure-failure to give receptionist opportunity to engage in investigation-failure to hold proper disciplinary meeting-employer not aware of a contract of employment-no disciplinary procedures in place-failure to tell claimant she had right to appeal-defects of sufficient consequence-dismissal unfair-steps taken to mitigate loss by receptionist were reasonable-behaviour of receptionist did not contribute to dismissal-Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2007.
Decision published: 8th November, 2012
For claimant: Huges & Liddy Solicitors
For respondent: Conor Bowman BL instructed by McCartan & Burke Solicitors
Read full decision of EAT here.
EAT awards €20,000 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 to waitress who thought she had no option but to leave her employment. Tribunal also finds that the investigation process ineffective.
Waitress-inappropriate touching by manager alleged-complaints and serious allegations-respondent acted quickly-found some of her allegations were substantiated-delay in issuing decision due to absence of waitress on sick leave-no detail of substance of investigation, the content or reasons for outcome communicated to waitress-appeal allowed to decision maker-appeal to decision maker not a valid appeal option-appeal to be sent to a third party not communicated to waitress-respondent made stringent efforts to keep waitress and manager apart-claimant never told she would have complete certainty that this would continue-investigation process flawed-no evidence of content of investigation-Tribunal does not believe “safe environment” to work in-efforts by employer to resolve issues-request from claimant’s union ignored-employer sought to engage directly with complainant-complainant had no choice but to leave-investigation process ineffective-Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment claim not addressed and dismissed-awarded €20,000 under Unfair Dismissals Acts.
Decision published: 30th October, 2012
Read full determination of EAT here.
Employments Appeals Tribunal awards €48,000 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, for unfair dismissal on the basis of the completely disproportionate actions of the employer to the incident and the absence of basic fair procedures and a flawed investigation and disciplinary procedures. EAT also awarded €1,900 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts.
Incident at The Square, Tallaght-use of “excessive force” alleged-basic fair procedures not adhered to-investigation and disciplinary procedures were flawed-respondent’s actions completely disproportionate to incident-no input by directors or senior management-no recall whether possible sanction was mentioned to claimant-15/20 minutes break between investigation meeting and disciplinary meeting-disciplinary meeting conducted by same person who conducted investigation meeting-“terminate” written on notes at end of investigation meeting-use of force basis of decision for dismissal-HR director accepted procedures were flawed-nevertheless upheld decision to dismiss-alternative sanctions not adequately considered-mitigating factors, including unblemished record, not sufficiently considered-at no stage did respondent communicate to the claimant that he may be disciplined.
For claimant: Siptu
For respondent: Tim O’Connell, Ibec
Decision published 30th October, 2012.
Read full determination of EAT.