UD854/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM(S) OF:                                                                                                                                                   CASE NO.

Paul Wallace      -        claimant

UD854/2013

against

Liam & Aisling Hurley Limited T/A Teamwoodcraft            -           respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Mr N. Russell

Members:     Mr J. Hennessy

Ms. N. Greene

heard this claim at Portlaoise on 19th March 2014 and 5th June 2014

Representation:

Claimant(s) :         Mr. Robert O'Reilly, O'Keeffe & Moore Solicitors, Lincoln

                             House, Lincoln Place, Dublin 2

Respondent(s) :     In Person (Director of respondent company)

Summary of Case

The claimant worked as a cabinet maker for the respondent company from 2000 until 2003. He returned to work for the respondent in 2005 and remained in employment until the termination of his employment in March 2013 following a dispute between the parties. The Tribunal heard evidence that the claimant was returning to his home from work in the company van on the afternoon of 20 March 2013. The respondent director known as (L) requested by way of a telephone message that the claimant leave the van at his (L’s) home later that evening and to take another larger company van in exchange. There was no time specified and the claimant understood that there was no urgency in leaving the van at (L’s) home.

The claimant returned to his own house and removed his own personal tools from the van. Later that evening as he was on his way to leave the van at (L’s) house he met with (L) and (M), another employee travelling in the opposite direction. He then made contact with them by telephone and was told to turn around and return to the workshop. He did so and exchange occurred between the parties. The Tribunal heard conflicting evidence of the exchange that occurred but the exchange concluded with the claimant throwing the keys on the dashboard of the van and leaving to go home.

The claimant did not go to work on the following day, 21 March 2013. He told the Tribunal that he was at rock bottom as he had been abused over returning the company van. He denied that he had shouted/roared at (L) on the previous evening. He went to collect his wages on Friday 22 March 2013 and he was presented with his P45. A letter of resignation was also prepared for his signature. He refused to sign this letter as he had not resigned and he informed (L) to this effect. He presented himself for work on Monday 25 March 2013 and gave evidence that (L) informed him that his position had been filled and there was no position available for him. He was then given his P45. He contacted (L) later that day to try and plead his case but never met with him thereafter.

(L) gave evidence that he and employee (M) met with the claimant in the workshop to collect the company van. He told the Tribunal that the claimant threw the keys of the van on the dashboard and told (M) to get him out of here. He gave evidence that he (the claimant) used foul language during the exchange. He assumed the claimant had left his job because he had handed back the keys of the van and had not subsequently reported for work. He gave evidence that he did not sack the claimant and the claimant did not enquire about returning to work. He instructed his wages person to prepare a P45 for the claimant. He had a further conversation with the claimant on Monday 25 March 2013 which he described to the Tribunal as a stand-off. The claimant then collected his P45 and he had no further contact with the claimant. He denied that the claimant’s position was filled by another employee. He did not contact the claimant and discuss the issue with him in accordance with the company’s policies and procedures as he was 100% certain that the claimant had left his employment.

Two further witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the respondent. M witnessed the incident and explained to the Tribunal that the claimant’s employment ending was something that got out of hand. His evidence was that the claimant was not replaced. BM confirmed that he works for the respondent on a contract basis during busy periods. He continues to carry out the same level and quantity of work for the respondent as he had been doing prior to the claimant’s employment ending.

The former bookkeeper (ML) for the respondent gave evidence on behalf of the claimant. The respondent instructed her to issue a P45 to the claimant. The respondent advised her not to discuss this with the claimant and requested her to type a letter confirming the claimant had received his pay and was terminating his employment. She prepared the claimant’s holiday pay entitlements and with the assistance of the respondent’s wife prepared the letter. The claimant arrived to collect his pay as normal the following day and she gave him the letter to sign confirming he had received his pay and his employment was terminating. He was shocked and upset and refused to take his P45 and refused to sign the letter. She recalled the respondent contacting her to check if the claimant had signed the letter.

DETERMINATION

After a heated exchange between the claimant and LH, the Managing Director of the respondent company, the latter appears to have been left with the impression that the claimant had resigned.   While there was a conflict in the evidence before the Tribunal as to what was said or done, it is clear that whatever occurred was very much in the heat of the moment where both parties felt aggrieved and became frustrated.

It would have quickly become apparent to LH that the claimant did not intend to resign and that, whatever words were uttered by him or actions taken, they were never intended to communicate a genuine resignation. LH could have been in no doubt as to the position.

The Tribunal believes that LH let his frustration get the better of him and unreasonably seized on what he perceived as the opportunity to see the claimant’s association with the respondent Company terminated.

In the circumstances the Tribunal is of the view that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awards him the sum of €5,000 by way of compensation under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)