A security officer in a shopping centre, who denies misappropriating money from shopping centre pay stations, wins his case for unfair dismissal and is awarded €46,800.
Claimant was security officer employed by property management company-manager carried out investigation into alleged misappropriation of funds-manager satisfied that findings merited referral onwards for possible disciplinary action-referred case to company director-claimant categorically denied taking money-respondent in liquidation and failed to appear-Tribunal not satisfied claimant misappropriated money-respondent did not prove dismissal was fair-uncontested evidence of claimant-unfair dismissal claim succeeds-awarded €46,800 and four weeks’ pay under Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts.
For claimant: Elaine Morgan BL instructed by David Burke & Co solicitors
For respondent: Derek Dunne BL instructed by McCullagh Higgins & Co. Solicitors on 9th July 2012
(No appearance by or on behalf of respondent on 15th November, 2012)
Decision published: 12th April, 2013
Read Full Decision Here
A pub worker wins €27,000 for unfair dismissal from her job in pub with serious cash flow problem.
Pub worker-difficulty in trading-serious cash flow problem-claimant obvious choice at the time-had to cut the wage bill-did not go through procedures-claimant chosen because of “decent wage”-no thought of pay cut or part time work-bar manager’s partner hours increased-pub advertised for staff-claimant told this was a “mistake”-claimant would have been happy to work part time.
Date decision published: 15th November, 2012
For claimant: Michael O’Donnell, Rathkeale
For respondent: Michael Loftus, Loftus Maher & Co. Accountants, Raheen, Limerick
Read full decision 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.