UD69/2012

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM(S) OF:                                                                                                        CASE NO.

EMPLOYEE - claimant                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                 UD69/2012

against

EMPLOYER- respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:    Mr. T.  Ryan

Members:     Mr. N.  Ormond

                     Ms M.  Maher

heard this claim at Dublin on 28th August 2013

Representation:

_______________

Claimant(s) :      

Respondent(s) :  

Background

The claimant worked for the respondent metal recycling company from 5 March 2010 until the termination of his employment on 16 September 2011.

Respondent’s Case

(RC), director of the respondent company gave evidence that the claimant contacted him on 12 September 2011 informing him that he had secured alternative employment and he was handing in his notice with the respondent company. He told the Tribunal that the claimant stated that he was due to start with his new employer on the following week and his new employment was only 15 minutes from his home. This would result in two hours less travelling time per day and a saving of €80 per week on diesel for the claimant. While (RC) was sorry to see the claimant leave he understood his reasons and wished him well in his new employment. He asked the claimant for confirmation of his resignation in writing and the claimant provided this to him. A copy of the resignation letter was opened to the Tribunal. The claimant’s employment terminated on 16 September 2011 and a P45 was subsequently issued to him. The claimant’s position in the company was filled approximately two weeks later.

Under cross examination (RC) denied that the claimant raised any issues directly or indirectly with him concerning Health & Safety issues prior to handing in his notice. He also confirmed that the company engaged the services of an external Health & Safety consultant who visited the company premises on a regular basis.

Claimant’s Case

The claimant accepted (RC’s) evidence concerning the events of 12 September 2011. However he told the Tribunal that he felt he had to resign due to Health & Safety issues in the company and his involvement in an accident while driving a company vehicle. He told the Tribunal that he worked approximately three feet from a wall where scrap metal was stored. The scrap metal was stacked higher than the height of the wall and a crack had developed in the wall from the force of the material. He believed he was working in a dangerous environment and feared for life working so close to the wall. He raised his concerns with a fellow employee from whom he took his orders as he understood this was the correct channel to use regarding his concerns.

He gave further evidence that he was involved in accident in July 2012 while driving a company truck. He reported the accident to the company directors and was told that he would be responsible for paying for the damage to vehicle involved in the accident. He was told that the company would not be processing payment for the damage through their insurance. He told the directors that he could not afford to pay for the damage but the company insisted that he pay for the damage. He was continually questioned about paying for the accident and felt intimidated into paying for the accident. As a result of these two issues he felt under severe pressure to resign from his employment which he did by way of letter given to the company on 12 September 2011.

He accepted that he was given a contract of employment and company handbook by the respondent company. He accepted that he did not raise his grievances with a director or financial controller as outlined in the company handbook. He stated that he was not on good terms with the company directors. He felt that by raising it with a fellow employee from whom he took orders that his concerns would be addressed. He confirmed that he did not raise any concerns with (RC) when he tendered his letter of resignation on 12 September 2011. He also accepted that an external Health & Safety consultant visited the company premises. He believed this consultant was on the premises once per fortnight or once per month. He confirmed that he commenced employment with an alternative employer the week after the termination of his employment with the respondent company and he continues to work for this employer.

Determination

The Tribunal carefully considered the verbal and written evidence adduced on the day of the hearing. The Tribunal notes that the claimant did not make any complaint to the external Health & Safety consultant nor did he raise his concerns with a director or financial controller in accordance with the procedures to be followed as outlined in the company handbook. The Tribunal is satisfied based on the claimant’s own admission that he received a copy of the company handbook which contains the procedures to be followed in respect of any grievances an employee may have. The Tribunal also notes that the claimant did not raise any concerns with the director of the company on the day he handed in his notice of resignation.

In conclusion the Tribunal finds that the claimant resigned from his employment with the respondent company and his claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

      (CHAIRMAN)