ud999_live13

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:                                                                                                                                                                       CASE NO.

Dainius Cerekavicius,                                                                                                                                                      UD999/2013

against

Trim Pigs Limited,

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Mr P. O'Leary B L

Members:     Mr C. Lucey

                    Mr F. Keoghan

heard this claim at Dublin on 7th November 2014

Representation:

Claimant:

             Mr Barra O'Cochlain, John Glynn & Company, Solicitors,

             Law Chambers, 4a The Village, Tallaght, Dublin 24

Respondent:

            Damien Grimes, Director.

Respondent’s case:

The respondent operates a number of pig farms and the claimant was employed as a General Operative on one of these farms from 15^th November 2010 until he was dismissed on 17^th June 2013.

The respondent contended that the claimant often did not turn up for work on Mondays without prior notice and that he had received verbal warnings in respect of this behaviour. The claimant had not shown up for work for two weeks prior to his dismissal and the respondent had no knowledge of why he was absent. The manager rang the claimant’s mobile phone but got no answer. The claimant turned up for work on 17^th June 2013 and the manager told him that there was no work available for him and instructed the office to issue his P45. It was only after the P45 had issued that the respondent received medical certs from the claimant.

In the months prior to the claimant’s dismissal the farm on which he worked was being wound down and the claimant was aware of this since April 2013. At the time of his dismissal there was still approximately six weeks work available on this farm. A number of employees have been made redundant since the claimant’s dismissal and most of the farms have closed down. Six employees now remain on two functioning farms. A list of those made redundant together with their start and finish dates was submitted to the Tribunal post the hearing date, as requested by the Tribunal.

The respondent did not issue the claimant with written terms and conditions of employment and did not have written grievance or disciplinary procedures.

Claimant’s case:

The claimant injured his back in work on 8^th or 9^th May 2013 and continued to work up to and including the following Friday. He had been taking medication he had at home for the pain but decided to attend his G.P. on the following Monday where upon he was certified as unfit to work. The claimant brought medical certificates to the office of the respondent on a weekly basis and believed that the manager was aware of the reason for his absence. However when he reported back for duty on 17^th June 2013 he was told in colourful language that there was no more work available to him and he was subsequently issued with his P45. Whenever the claimant missed work on Monday it was on the basis that he had prior approval by the respondent. The claimant was aware of the winding down of some of the farms but was never told that he was to be made redundant.

It was the claimant’s position that he was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.

Determination:

The Tribunal considered the evidence in this case and noted that the respondent had not furnished the claimant with written terms and conditions of employment and had no written procedures in respect of the claimant’s employment. This was particularly so in respect of terms of absences due to sickness and the provision of medical certification. In order to rely on such provisions an employer should at least ensure that the requirements of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act are complied with by him. The Tribunal accept that the claimant did comply with this provision and provided the respondent with medical certification. The witness for the respondent also gave evidence that the claimant failed to turn up on Mondays but failed to produce any written evidence to sustain this allegation. This was denied by the claimant and the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the claimant in this case. The claimant was summarily dismissed without justification.

The Tribunal finds, based on the above, that the manner in which the claimant was dismissed was unfair and awards him the sum of €10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Euro) under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)