EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
RP1835/2011
UD1377/2011
EMPLOYEE claimant MN1473/2011
against
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 J. Revington S.C.
Members: Mr T. O'Grady
Mr A. Butler
heard this claim at Dublin on 14th February 2013
and 3rd September 2013
and 13th November 2013
and 14th November 2013
Representation:
____________
Claimant(s):
- th February 2013,
Respondent(s) :
Mr John Larney, O'Sullivan Barnicle, Solicitors, 48 South
William Street, Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Dismissal was in dispute in this case
Claimant’s Case
The claimant told the Tribunal that she was employed with the respondent since June 2002. She is a qualified machinist and she made track suit tops and bottoms and is an over locker.
Her employment was uneventful until 21st May 2009. She then felt intimidated by two colleagues NB and MB. NB slammed the door of the canteen and she asked NB to discontinue doing this. The claimant wanted to do her job. LE one of the owners witnessed this incident.
On the 22nd May 2009 she went to the canteen to make tea and MB moved the milk from one side to the other. M said to her “what the f…. do u want”. She came out crying. LE approached her and he wanted to know what was going on. She told him that MB verbally abused her. On the 23rd May 2009 as she was coming out of the canteen NB put her chest against her and blocked her. One day in August 2009 she went to get her jacket and she discovered that it was ripped and this was done with a scissors. CF, her supervisor told her that she would repair her jacket for her.
On the 23 March 2010 a colleague PG turned around and spat at her and she threw water over her but PG denied that she did anything. LE roared and shouted at the claimant and asked her if she was on drugs or on medication. She left early, contacted her solicitor and asked her solicitor to deal with it.
She attended a Rights Commissioner investigation on 6 May 2010 and she received a recommendation on the 8 June 2010 that an investigation be carried out. DE (owner) gave her an undertaking that he would carry out an investigation and no independent third party investigation took place. She sought redundancy based on her short working week.
On the 9 December 2010 she was late for work as her car broke down and she had to get the bus to work. She did not tell CF that she would not be back in work after Christmas. CF gave her the wages at 4p.m. and wished her a Happy Christmas and she then left work. She left a body warmer and money on her desk for her return to work. She also left her scissors and a few personal items in work. She was not given her P45 on that day. The shop floor was reorganised and this was nothing to do with her. After December 2010 she expected to return to work. CF would contact her the day before she was due to return to work. She did not receive a call to return to work on the 11th January 2011. On the 10 January 2011 she received her P45 by post which was before her due date to return to work. She could not understand it as DE gave her permission to go straight to holidays.
In cross examination she stated that she did not have problems in work until May 2009. Up until this juncture the respondent was a good employer. She disagreed that the respondent facilitated her in 2009 after her house was broken into. Her husband was ill in 2009 but he has returned to work.
She disagreed that the respondent had a code of practice regarding bullying in the workplace and that documents were displayed on the walls of the work premises. She never received a health and safety policy document. She attended a talk on bullying in the workplace on the 26th June 2010 which was given by the respondent’s solicitor. He mentioned different kinds of bullying. CF asked her to sign a form to confirm that the respondent’s solicitor gave a talk on bullying. She did not sign this form as she knew it would not work as the respondent’s idea of bullying was different to hers. There were two kinds of bullying and that was the reason she did not sign the document. She maintained that in the work situation that if someone told her to f… off that that would not be construed as bullying in the workplace.
She did not observe the notices in relation to bullying and harassment on the factory floor but she saw notices at the back of the canteen door. Her understanding of being bullied was that she could go to DE and tell him and if she was not satisfied she could document it in writing. She felt that there was no point in making complaints. She agreed that the employer must listen to both sides when undertaking an investigation.
She did not want any contact with the three people who bullied her. The door of the canteen was slammed if she went in. On the 21 May 2009 she was at her machine when NB slammed the canteen door. CF gave the claimant an extra two to three minutes to make her tea in the canteen. After that she came out of the canteen, she was at her machine and NB slammed the door and this was on going. A few times NB caught her and she would try to put her chest against the claimant’s. The toilet door had been slammed a few times. She thought that CF was monitoring the situation.
She reported door slamming incidents to LE but nothing was done about it. The next day NB started to intimidate her and she reported it to LE. She disagreed that NB never slammed a door. The claimant’s sister helped her to compile a handwritten letter.
On the 22 May 2009 she was in the canteen and MB came up behind her as she was making a quick cup of tea, MB moved the milk to the far side. CF told her to make tea before the rest of the employees came in. MB knew that she was keeping an eye out for TH and this had nothing to do with milk. MB verbally abused TH and told her to get down you big fat f.... and get your work done. MB was a nasty piece of work.
The respondent was a good employer until she complained about MB and NB. After 2009 the respondent was not a good employer. MB knew that she was watching out for TH and that is how he started gunning for her. She told TH to write it down and she denied that she threw a spoon on the table. MB told her to f…. out of canteen and she asked him what his problem was. The claimant was crying after this and she had no witnesses to this event. PG threw water over her after her case concluded in the Rights Commissioner. She made a complaint about two colleagues at the Rights Commissioner hearing.
MB verbally abused her on the 22 May 2009 and she complained about him. The difficulties with PG continued and she told LE that PG spat at her. Up to that PG did not bother her and she did not know why PG turned against her. Four colleagues were asked if they observed anything but they did not want to get involved. There were no witnesses to the incident in the canteen. She disagreed that she jammed NB against bags.
In further cross examination on 13 November 2013 the claimant stated that she did not know why TH signed the form that she had attended a talk on Bullying given by the respondent’s solicitor.
On the day before the 21 May 2009 she told NB to stop intimidating her. Every time NB saw her she slammed the door in her face. She told LE and she was told to put it in writing. The first door slamming incident occurred on the 21 May 2009. She and TH did not go to the canteen for lunch. On the 22 May 2009 she went to the canteen at 1.30a.m. MB was behind her, she put her hand out to get milk and he told her to f… off and get out of here. She had not been talking to MB for two years previously. She just wanted to do her work. She asked MB if he had a problem with her and he told her to f. off and get out of here. MB verbally abused her for the first time on 22 May 2009. No one came forward as a witness. The canteen was empty when MB abused her and he was coming in when she was going out the door. The incident was witnessed by NB and a few of the polish girls.
On the 23 May 2009 she was coming out of the back and plastic bags were in the way. She could not pass and NB pressed her chest against hers. She felt harassed and she reported it to LE. Two employees were present and she could not remember the others. When put to her that it was she who jammed against NB she replied that she and TH went to lunch that day.
The claimant’s husband was ill at this time. He required a lot of care. She tried to get redundancy as she wanted to get out as nothing was done about the bullying and harassment. No investigation by a third party took place.
She gave LE a list of complaints on the 28 May 2009. LE brought her to the office and he told her that she was not the only one complaining about MB. LE told her that he did not want to lose her and that NB was just a moan. She thought that would be the end of the matter but it was not. All the harassment started again. The intimidation still continued between May 2009 and August 2009 but she ignored it completely. She did not complain as there was no point.
In August 2009 her jacket and cardigan was ripped and she told CF this at 5p.m. At a meeting with DE the next day DE did not ask her to bring them in. It looked like the jacket which was three quarter length was cut with a scissors at the back. DE asked her if she was sure that her jacket was ripped. He told her that he was informed that she was bragging in Camden Street that she was taking a month off. She asked him to get the person into office that was spreading rumours about her She told DE that PG ripped a jacket. She wanted the name of the person who took her character away. She told him that she was leaving. DE told her to put it in writing. She obtained legal advice and she was advised to remain in work and that is what she did. DE told her that she was paranoid.
She got on very well with LE and she called him an “aul smoothie”. She did not confront PG about ripping her jacket. She did not have an altercation with PG in Camden Street and she did not call her a squealer rat. She had not spoken to PG for a year before so why would she want to talk to her outside. In August 2009 LE asked her to put her complaint in writing. She went to a solicitor in March 2010.
She was very friendly with PG until 2008. On one occasion she went to a concert with PG and GW. She had a dispute with PG regarding work and she could not accept the lies that PG told. She was told that PG and MB told the owners everything.
She loved her job and in 2009 the bullying and harassment was constant day after day. She looked for redundancy as nothing was being done about her complaint. Her husband returned to work three weeks later.
Between August 2009 and February 2010 she did not report anything. She went to the Rights Commissioner in early 2010 as nothing was being done when she reported incidents. Her complaint was heard in the Rights Commissioner on Thursday 6 May 2010.
On the 23 March 2010 she was washing her cup and PG put her cup under the water and threw it over her. CF told her to report it and put it in writing. She was going to walk out and she told TH that she was going home. TH told her not to go as she had a lot of bills to pay. All machines were turned off and LE addressed the workers. DE told her that she had a bee in her bonnet and he asked her if she was on drugs and medication. She went home at 5p.m. and went to her solicitor. PG admitted to LE what she did and still nothing was done.
Another incident occurred in April 2010 between MB and the claimant. MB shouted at her. LE told MB if he did not shut up he would be brought to the office, MB continued to shout at him.
A witness on behalf of the claimant TH told the Tribunal that on the 21 May 2009 she sat in front of MB and NB slammed the door behind her. On the 22 May 2009 the claimant came out of the canteen with tea. NB went to the canteen before everyone else. As NB was coming out of the canteen the claimant had to shove herself to the right or she would be scalded.
In August 2009 she was getting ready to go home. The claimant showed her a jacket that was cut. She asked the claimant what happened to her jacket. The claimant told her that someone had ripped it. CF told the claimant to go to the machine and fix it. The claimant told her there was no point as it was ripped.
In April 2010 she was giving work to one of the girls and CF was outside. She heard MB saying that there was one of her and three or four of us. She went to break and lunch with the claimant.
On the 9 December 2010 the claimant told her they were getting holidays today. The claimant told her that she had loads of plans. The claimant did not tell her that she was leaving. She received a call on the 10 January 2011. She contacted the claimant who told her that she had received her P45. The claimant told her that her husband was in hospital. She did not see the claimant from the 9 December 2010 until the 10 January 2011. In 2008 MB abused her while she was at the machine. He told her to shut up u fat ugly c…. She got on well with MB before that. A deaf colleague was in front of her when this occurred. There was an on-going situation at this time. A friend helped her to draft a report and she had it in her bag for some months before she gave it to DE. She could not take it anymore.
.
She was summoned to LE’s office and he told her that he believed she had a complaint against MB. She knew that LE and MB were very close. She was in the office and froze. He asked her what she was saying about MB and no investigation ever occurred. MB was not called in about this and she heard nothing in writing about the complaint.
She relayed an incident in relation to the back door. It was a hot day and she told CF that she never did anything until she obtained permission. She asked to open the back door. NB slammed the back door shut. CF told NB that she gave permission to open the door. NB stated that she was not getting f…..n sick again. She asked the claimant to look out for her. MB abused her for months. She broke down and asked the claimant would she look after her. She told the claimant what happened. MB made a comment to herself and the claimant who do they think they are. MB knew the claimant was watching out for
In cross examination she stated that she worked with the claimant but she did not socialise with her. She went to one concert with her. NB slammed the door all the time. NB slammed the door on 21 May 2009 and on other occasions as well. She was ill the next day and the claimant relayed to her what occurred. On the day that PG threw water over the claimant and spat at the claimant she was working on the machine in front of the claimant. She did not see the incident. The claimant’s sleeve was soaking wet and that is how she heard about the incident
LE was gunning for the claimant. LE asked the claimant if she was on drugs./medication. She had issues with LE, he would bully and curse at her. She had a problem with PG. Every time she had a problem she went to DE. The claimant and LE got on great but as the claimant looked on LE came gunning for her. At first LE was a gentleman.. The claimant’s sleeve was wet... LE asked her about this the next day. PG spat at the claimant and the witness was in front of her. The next day LE asked her what she saw and she told him.
When put to her that five witnesses had a different version of what occurred she replied that two cannot be wrong. A scissors was used to cut the coat. DE asked the claimant if she was on the machine. This is what she remembered and the claimant remembered it differently. She is still employed with the respondent.
Respondent’s Case
DE told the Tribunal that the respondent was established in 1967 by his father and he joined in 1992. He never had a problem with employees.
He had no problem with the claimant for the first seven years of her employment. Three incidents occurred over three days and he was shocked. Two of the incidents were very vague. The claimant maintained that NB slammed a door. Fifteen minutes later he summoned NB to his office and NB denied it. He had different versions of what occurred.
In relation to the incident on the 22nd May 2009 MB had a different version of what occurred. The incident was over a spoon that the claimant had thrown at the table. MB laughed and the claimant asked MB if he had a problem with her. He could not call one person a liar.
On the 23 May 2009 he was not in work. His father LE dealt with the incident. LE told both NB and the claimant that they were grown women and that it was ludicrous behaviour, they shook hands.
He was not on the premises in August 2009 when the coat cutting incident occurred. CF contacted him to inform him that an incident had occurred. The next day the claimant asked to see him. He asked her if she could bring in the coat and she said she did not want to do it. He told the claimant he would bring in the Gardaí and the claimant was adamant that she did not want the Gardaí brought in. He received a report in August 2009 from the claimant.
On the 23 March 2010 CF relayed an incident to him. LE asked the claimant if she was involved and the claimant said it was PG that threw water on her and spat on her. LE asked two witnesses if they had seen anything. The radio was on again. He knew his father was very frustrated by this. He saw his father going to the claimant and he could not be described as having a go at her. His father was a gentleman.
He was not there to witness an incident between MB and the claimant. He got in touch with his solicitor and informed him that a few incidents had occurred. He wanted his solicitor involved so that everyone knew where they stood regarding bullying and harassment. The claimant would not sign the form to indicate that she had attended a talk on bullying and harassment. TH signed it ten minutes after the solicitor left.
There was never any animosity between the claimant and the respondent. The claimant told him she would draw a line in the sand. He told the claimant that if she had a problem she should go to him.
After the rights commissioner hearing he spoke with the claimant and he endeavoured to do his utmost to resolve problems. In May 2010 nothing was raised with him at all. In December 2010 the claimant sought redundancy and he told her that he would look into it. The claimant was on a three day week for some time. He would have given the claimant redundancy if it was available.
On the 9 December 2010 he could have been out for lunch. The claimant came in as usual and asked CF when they were breaking up for the holidays. He tried to retain employees as long as possible in employment leading up to Christmas. CF told the claimant that it was today and the claimant said thank god and that she won’t be back. It was not possible that the claimant would have received her P45 before the 14 January 2011. All employees were entitled to pay in lieu of New Year’s Day. He did the wages and the next payroll was dated the 12 January 2011. He did not send the P45 to the claimant until the 14 January 2011.
In cross examination he stated that the first three investigations were all dealt verbally by the respondent. NB denied the allegations that were made against her by the claimant. He told the claimant the outcome and he did not make notes. The code of practice regarding bullying was located near the health and safety statement. A handwritten letter was written by TH on behalf of the claimant. He told TH that he had never heard about this before. The main gripe was against MB. MB had a different version of what occurred. He received two letters within a short time. MB made a suggestion that both the witness and his dad LE change the factory around so that he had no eye contact with the claimant and one of the employees. MB was upset due to the allegations made.
It was not in his power to say to PG that she cut a coat. PG denied emphatically that she cut the coat and she was upset on being accused of this. He did not have a note of what PG said. When TH was asked about an incident on 22 March 2010 she denied it. It was a friendly place to work. He did not offer the claimant an investigation into what the Rights Commissioner recommended. He felt that he had dealt with all the incidents that occurred in the year. MB was never a family friend and was never in his house. He never witnessed anything and he did try to investigate the incidents.
He could not recall when CF told him that the claimant had resigned. If someone was leaving it was not up to him to chase them. The claimant had talked about redundancy and her husband was ill.
In answer to questions from the Tribunal he stated that he was surprised that the claimant resigned. He did not issue a P45 on the day as there was a chance that she was upset and maybe she would return. He did not feel that it was up to him to chase the claimant. He asked the claimant to bring in the garment that was torn. Nothing like this every occurred before. The respondent has a grievance procedure.
Thirteen were employed with the respondent He did not have conditions of employment for employees. He would have no difficulty offering the claimant a reference. He again reiterated that it was not up to him to go chasing the claimant after she resigned. The claimant was not replaced.
The second witness for the respondent MB told the Tribunal that on the 22 May 2009 the claimant went to the canteen. He sat down and a couple of seconds later the claimant bounced a spoon off the table. His colleagues heard the noise of the spoon and looked at CF. CF put her finger to the teaspoon, the girls laughed. The claimant asked him if she had a problem with him. The claimant reported the matter to LE and LE responded “what can I say”.
He did not say in April 2010 that there were three or four of them and one of her. He told LE he could not tell him anything as it did not happen. For anyone to hear him he would have to be screaming. If one person heard it everyone would have to hear it. The claimant was the furthest person away from where he came through. He did not know anything about clothes being cut/torn. He was on the factory floor when LE came in and turned off the radio. He was not aware that an incident took place. LE asked the claimant about the issue of water being poured over her. LE was always calm. The claimant told LE that PG poured water over her and spat at her. LE asked the claimant if anyone had seen it. B and T said that they did not see anything. There was no roaring and shouting.
In cross examination he stated that LE questioned him about the incident on the 22 May 2009. He told LE that the claimant bounced a spoon off the table and walked out. He told the claimant to f…. off and get out of the place. He was asked to document it in writing which he did. He was never told of a decision in relation to this. He was not told in April 2010 that the allegation was that he shouted across the factory floor. He was not given a response in writing.
He never called TH a fat c…... He got on well with the claimant and TH and there was a great atmosphere in work. LE told TH to give up joking and do her work. He had never seen anyone walk out. He never told TH that she was huge and why would he as he was friends with her. LE interviewed him for fifteen minutes regarding the complaint that TH had made in writing. He did not think that LE took notes. He was not given a decision on this. He was never reprimanded for his behaviour and there would be no reason for this. He was spoken to in April 2010 and if he was supposed to be screaming everyone would have heard him. He reiterated that he was never given a warning. He maintained that TH fabricated this.
In answer to questions from the Tribunal he stated he could say that the claimant wanted out. The claimant had not spoken to TH for so long and then they spoke. TH stopped speaking to him for no reason. In all his years of employment no one left or was dismissed. He could not say what had happened and it was fabricated. He is a cutter and CF gave orders to the girls.
NB told the Tribunal that she was not related to MB. She got on great with TH and the claimant. She never had a row with anyone and she did not socialise with anyone in work. On the 21 May 2009 she did not slam a door behind anyone. LE asked her if she slammed a door. She was shocked as she was accused of something she did not do.
On the 23 May 2009 she was doing a nixer for herself. TH was working on her machine and due to baggage the passage was narrower. The claimant growled, the claimant had a hot cup of tea and the witness squeezed against the bags. She did not want to get scalded. There was no pushing, she squeezed against the bags and she was nervous of the cup of tea. The claimant growled at her and told her that she should not be there. She heard about the cutting of clothes. She was on the premises on the day that the production ceased on the floor. She did not know who turned off the radio
LE, DE and CF stood on the floor and employees were told to turn off their machines. There was something about a complaint that the claimant had made that PG threw water over her and spat at her. The claimant maintained that two employees observed what happened behind her. TH and B said that they did not see anything. The radio was then turned back on. She thought LE was upset, he was a jolly man and did not bother employees. She did not hear LE shout at the claimant or ask her if she was on drugs. She did not notice that the claimant was wet. PG did not run to LE to confirm that she threw water.
In cross examination she stated that she was brought to the office on a few occasions. She was informed that the claimant was going out of the canteen and she was so close to the claimant that she could have hit her. The claimant accused her of something and she could not remember the details. LE asked them could they become friends and the claimant was the first person to extend her hand. She did not take any notes of what occurred. She had no idea about the torn jacket and she never saw it. TH was part of the gang. The allegations were untrue. She felt that the claimant was cool with her. On one occasion she was at the shop at lunch time and the claimant and TH verbally abused her outside the door. It was claimant’s and TH choice to stay away from the canteen.
CF told the Tribunal she was supervisor and in charge of all the employees on the factory floor. She is employed 47 years with the respondent. It was a very happy place to work. She never had any problems with anyone. She was not verbally abused by numerous employees on the factory floor. She did not understand the complaints that were made. No one was ever dismissed. Employees left to get married and some stayed forever. LE was a gentleman and was very easy to work for. If you had a problem he would always listen to employees.
In relation to the allegation of the torn clothes she stated that after closing time she was coming up the passage and the claimant told her that her clothes were cut. She was going to visit a friend in the hospice. The claimant did not show her the clothes. The next morning the claimant requested to see DE. The claimant had the garments across her arm and she could not see if the clothes were cut.
The claimant came out of the canteen and stated that PG had thrown water and spat on her. She asked the claimant if she had a witness and she replied B and T. She could not see water. She spoke to B who told her that she did not witness anything. LE came to her and the claimant. The claimant reported it to her moments after it happened. There was no evidence of any water at all. LE was shocked when he addressed the factory floor. It was totally untrue that LE had a go at the claimant. She did not hear LE ask the claimant if she was on drugs.
She recalled that the solicitor for the respondent gave a talk on bullying in the respondent. She brought a form around after the talk which TH signed and which she did not object to in any way. TH did not talk to the claimant about a form. She did not recall the claimant giving advice to TH not to sign the form.
On the 9 December 2010 she made a note on the morning as to what happened. She opened the door and the claimant asked her when are we getting holidays. The witness told her today. The claimant told her that she will not be back. The claimant’s husband was ill. She asked the claimant how her husband was and she told her that she will not be back. She told LE what the claimant had said. The claimant cleared her work place. The claimant binned her work garments and took clothes with her. She did not go to a drawer of any employee and she did not check the claimant’s drawer. She reiterated that the claimant told her she was not coming back.
In cross examination when put to her that she did not ask to inspect the torn garments in August 2009 she replied she had no reason to doubt it.
On the 23 March 2010 she did not touch the claimant’s sleeve and she did not think it was the right thing to do. All employees were on the factory floor at the time. The claimant had two witnesses and they were asked on to the factory floor.
She did not tell the claimant to confirm in writing that she was leaving on the 9 December 2010. She told LE that the claimant won’t be back. On the 9 December 2010 she told gave LE the words the claimant gave her. She did not think about the word that the claimant said and she did not think it was a resignation. Everyone was in a happy mood on the 9 December 2010. LE was in work on the 9 December and DE was not there. She did not know if LE approached the claimant. She did not have any feeling on it.
She would never go near an employee’s personal items. She had no idea why she did not telephone the claimant and she was not told to do it. The claimant told her that she was not coming back and she did not infringe on her privacy. She could not say with certainty that this was a resignation. She was not trained on the Code of Practice in relation to bullying in the workplace. She never had a complaint previously.
In answer to questions from the Tribunal she stated that at that time of the year -December there was not an abundance of work. She reiterated that she did not think about what the claimant told her and whether it was a resignation. When asked if that was unusual she agreed yes. She did not think it was unusual at the time to document what the claimant said. She had no idea why she wrote it down. She would document different things. The decision was not conveyed to her by LE. If an employee was out someone else was taken on. LE did not write to the claimant to establish if she was returning to work.
She was never given the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. When she was asked that she had no idea that there was a claim in the Rights Commissioner about employees that reported to her she replied she undertook work on the factory floor. She was told about an independent investigation. Employees are paid holiday pay at Christmas
She did not know what was cut out of a diary note dated 8 May. When she thought of something she would write it down. The claimant told her that PG spilled water on her and spat at her. She did not see water on the claimant and she was just shocked and surprised. When she was asked if she noticed that there was a body warmer on the claimant’s chair she replied she would not interfere with clothing. She does not check drawers if employees leave. It did not occur to her to check the drawer to establish if the claimant had left anything behind.
PG told the Tribunal she was employed with the respondent twelve to thirteen years. There was a very good atmosphere in the factory and everyone got on well. She definitely did not tear the claimant’s clothes. She did not interfere with clothing belonging to the claimant. She never saw the clothing belonging to the claimant. She was asked about it but she never saw the garment.
She did not throw water at the claimant on the 23 March 2010. She made her tea and went outside to smoke a cigarette. She could quite possibly have been in the canteen as they washed their cups after the morning break and put them in the dishwasher in the afternoon. She did not recall throwing water over the claimant. The claimant did not speak to her then as far as she could recall. The claimant did not show her that she was wet. She did not spit at the claimant and she never spat at anyone.
She recalled LE turning the radio and machines off. LE asked her what happened. LE stated that both B and T had witnessed it and she said that she had not seen anything. She did not hear anything about LE asking the claimant if she was on drugs. She would not confess to something she did not do. She did not remember if LE took notes. LE asked her if she had spat at and threw water at the claimant.
Determination
Having heard all the evidence this case the Tribunal unanimously prefer the evidence of the claimant and while there are many contradictions within the evidence the Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant told the truth as she saw it. Consequently the Tribunal finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and in all the circumstances awards her compensation of €15,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
The claimant is entitled to four weeks gross pay in the amount of €1,924.00 (€481.00 per week) under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.
The claimant is not entitled to an award under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)