UD1256/2012

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL(S) OF:                                                                                            CASE NO.

Sharon Kelly   -   appellant

                        UD1256/2012

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

Rachel Cudden   -   respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Mr. D. MacCarthy S C

Members:     Mr. J. Reid

                   Mr. J. Dorney

heard this appeal at Dublin on 8th January 2014

Representation:

Appellant:       Ms. K (the appellant’s husband)

Respondent:    Ms. B. O’Flaherty B.L. instructed by Ms. Anna Murphy, O'Reilly Thomas, Solicitors, 8 North Quay, Drogheda, Co Louth

Background:

This matter was heard simultaneously with UD2311/2011.

This appeal came before the Tribunal by way of an employer (the appellant) appealing Rights Commissioner Recommendation (reference: r-105322-ud-11/JW). A correcting order issued under this reference by virtue of S.39 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The correcting order was dated 30^th July 2012. The employer subsequently lodged an appeal with the Tribunal on 9^th August 2012.

The employer was not present at the hearing but her husband (Mr. K) attended the hearing. Mr. K informed the Tribunal that the employer was suffering an illness for some time and was unable to attend the hearing but he did not have medical evidence in this regard. Mr. K confirmed that he was not present at the time of the termination of the employment and on these grounds he sought a postponement of the hearing until such a time as the employer’s health had improved. He stated that he had not sought a postponement of the matter prior to the hearing as there was some engagement in an effort to settle the matter but this was ultimately unsuccessful.

Representation on behalf of the employee strongly opposed the application to postpone the hearing. It was alleged that the employer has opened a new business but this was refuted by Mr. K who stated that it was he who had opened the new business and that his wife worked in the business in the role of manager.

Determination:

Having considered the matter the Tribunal informed the parties verbally that it was not disposed to granting the postponement application in circumstances where the application was not made in advance of the hearing and given that there was no medical evidence provided in support of the application.

In circumstances where Mr. K confirmed that he could not provide evidence in relation to the termination of employment the appeal must fall and the Rights Commissioner Recommendation (reference: r-105322-ud-11/JW) is affirmed.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)