EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE RP2589/11
claimant UD2009/11
MN2039/11
EMPLOYER respondent
under
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. T. Ryan
Members: Mr F. Moloney
Ms. N. Greene
heard this claim at Dublin on 17th July 2013.
Representation:
Claimant: In person
Respondent:
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The claimant told the Tribunal that he was unaware that he must bring a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 to the Tribunal within six months from the termination of his employment. The Tribunal is not satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed preventing the claimant from lodging such claim. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Claimant’s Case:
The claimant commenced employment on 8th May 2000 and worked in general maintenance. In 2009 his hours were reduced to eight hours per week. He felt that the respondent was trying to get rid of him.
Because of the harsh winter he became unwell in November 2010 and he furnished medical certificates to the respondent covering his absence.
In or around Christmas 2010 he was deemed fit to resume work and contacted Director TH. TH responded “just leave it for the moment”. He made several attempts to return to work in the following weeks but TH repeatedly told him to “leave it for the moment”. The claimant wanted to return to work as he needed the money.
In January 2011 he enquired about a redundancy payment. TH responded “leave it with me”.
In November 2011 the claimant requested his P45.
Respondent’s Case:
The respondent owns a public house. The claimant was engaged in general maintenance work. He kept the yard clean and looked after empty bottles.
The claimant worked full time until 2009 when he approached TH and asked for his hours to be reduced. TH facilitated the claimant and allocated the claimant two four hourly shifts two days a week.
The claimant was absent from work during the period May 2010 to August 2010. TH was aware the claimant had family health issues but did not make contact with the claimant during this time. No medical certificates were furnished by the claimant for this absence from the company.
Towards the end of January 2011 the claimant told TH he was entitled to redundancy and asked him for his redundancy payment. TH was taken aback. He told the claimant his job was still there for him and also his clock card. The claimant told TH then that he was seeking legal advice on the matter.
TH had a personal relationship with the claimant and did not feel it necessary to write to the claimant during his absences from work. He had seen the claimant many times around town. He did not consider writing to the claimant during his absences from work but with hindsight he contended that he should have written.
Determination:
The Tribunal considered the evidence during the course of the hearing. It is clear to the Tribunal that there is a conflict of evidence between the parties.
The claimant was absent from work during the period May 2010 to August 2010. At no time during this period did the respondent contact the claimant either verbally or in writing.
When the claimant enquired about his redundancy payment towards the end of January 2011 TH did not write to the claimant clarifying that his job was still there for him and was thus not entitled to such payment.
Accordingly, the Tribunal awards the claimant a redundancy lump based on the following criteria:
Date of Birth: 03rd March 1934
Date of Commencement: 08th May 2000
Date of Termination: 25th November 2010
Gross Weekly Wage: €69.00
The Tribunal also awards the claimant €414.00 being the equivalent of six weeks pay under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)