EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIMS OF: CASE NOS
EMPLOYEE – claimant UD1076/2011
MN1183/2011
against
EMPLOYER – respondent
EMPLOYER ) – respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms E. Kearney BL
Members: Mr P. Pierson
Mr P. Trehy
heard this claim at Tullamore on 21st March 2013
Representation:
Claimant:
Respondent: In person
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Respondent’s Case
The managing director gave evidence. The claimant worked as a chef. On Tuesday 11 April 2011 the managing director sent the claimant a text message asking him to come to a meeting on the following Thursday. The claimant agreed to the meeting.
At about 8.00pm on Tuesday the managing director was in his office meeting a painter when the claimant burst into the office and refused to leave. The claimant was a senior person in the business but the managing director decided not to speak to him on that occasion. When the managing director left his office the claimant followed him into the bar. The managing director was trapped between the claimant and some scaffolding.
The managing director accepted that he had sent the claimant a text accusing him of leaving work early one evening but that he had been mistaken.
The following morning the claimant refused to apologise for his behaviour the previous evening so the managing director suspended him pending the scheduled meeting on Thursday.
On Thursday morning the managing director arrived at work at about 9.00am and found the claimant at work. The managing director wanted to know why the claimant was there as the meeting had been scheduled for 2.30pm. The initial purpose of the meeting was to discuss the running of the kitchen.
The managing director again asked the claimant to apologise for his behaviour on the Tuesday night. The claimant refused. The managing director sacked the claimant for gross misconduct.
Claimant’s Case
The claimant gave evidence. He worked for the respondent as a chef from 2009. There were no problems in the kitchen or otherwise until 3 or 4 months before his dismissal. A wok station was installed in the kitchen. When he asked the managing director about it he was told not your problem. Changes were happening and he was worried about the future because he was the better paid of the two chefs employed by the respondent.
The claimant got a text message on Tuesday evening from the managing director telling him that the kitchen closed at 8.00pm and not at three minutes to eight. He was asked to attend a meeting with the managing director on the following Thursday. The claimant was concerned that the managing director wanted to get rid of him and felt that he should return to work and explain the position to the managing director.
When he returned to the premises the bar man told the claimant that the managing director was in his office. The claimant did not barge into the office he just opened the door and told the managing director that he wanted to speak to him. The managing director said he was busy and come back on Thursday. The claimant only wanted 5 minutes to explain that he had not left work early. The managing director went into the bar and when the claimant followed him, the managing director waved him away and said no.
When the claimant arrived at work on Wednesday morning the managing director was waiting for him. The managing director asked the claimant if he had anything to say. The claimant said no and the managing director took his keys to the premises.
On Thursday morning when the claimant arrived at work the managing director told him to leave and to return at 2.30pm. The claimant said ok. When the claimant returned for the meeting the managing director told the claimant that his behaviour was unbelievable and that he had been given 6 opportunities to apologise. He told the claimant that he would not work here anymore. The managing director also told the claimant, this is a small town, but did not elaborate.
The claimant established loss for the Tribunal.
Determination
The Tribunal considered the evidence adduced. An issue arose between the claimant and the managing director concerning the claimant’s supposed early departure from work. The claimant sought to resolve the issue by returning to work to explain his position to the managing director.
For reasons that remain unclear the managing director refused to speak with the claimant, who was a senior member of staff with almost 2 years of unblemished service, and insisted that the important matter could not be discussed that day or the following day.
When the meeting occurred the claimant was dismissed without recourse to any proper policy. The claimant was afforded no opportunity to explain what had happened. He was dismissed at a meeting that had been scheduled for a different purpose without receiving proper notice of the meeting or being informed in advance that his position was in jeopardy. The Tribunal finds that the dismissal was unfair due to the complete absence of fair process. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 succeeds and the claimant is awarded €6000.00.
The claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005 also succeeds and the claimant is awarded the sum of €692.31 being one week’s pay.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)