EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Philomena Hynes – claimant UD1037/2012
against
Mrs. Audrey Meade T/A Posh Wash - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr R. Maguire, B.L.
Members: Mr. L. Tobin
Mr P. Trehy
heard this claim at Tullamore on 12th December 2013
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Ms Mary Ward, Michael Ward & Co., Solicitors, Edenderry, Co. Offaly
Respondent(s) : in person
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Evidence
The claimant was recruited by the respondent and commenced employment in April 2008. It was agreed that the respondent had taken over the business from a previous owner.
While caring for her sister and claiming carers allowance the claimant worked fifteen hours per week for the respondent which was permitted by social welfare. There was no set time pattern and the claimant received a text message from the employer when she was required to work. The claimant was paid €8 per hour and this was accepted by the employer at the hearing. It was a regular occurrence that wages would be left short and were often in arrears.
On the 8 March 2012 the claimant became aware that her carers allowance was stopped and following a number of telephone calls learned that the allowance was stopped as she had worked over the fifteen hours permitted under the scheme. Upon informing her employer it was suggested to her to get their stories straight regarding the hours she had worked and that it would be best that the employer speak to social welfare on the matter. On the 15 March 2012 the claimant and the respondent had a heated argument whereby the respondent denied declaring more than fifteen hours work for the employee. The respondent was described as aggressive on the day and instructed her daughter to telephone the Gardaí. Later that day the claimant received a message to return the keys which she did by handing them in to the local Garda station as she was in fear of the respondent.
The respondent had taken over the business from a previous owner for whom she was an employee. With regard to the incidents of the 8 March and the 15 March 2012 the Tribunal heard from the respondent that the claimant had worked more than fifteen hours and she had declared that to social welfare. The respondent herself had at that time also applied for carers allowance due to the illness of her daughter.
Determination
The Tribunal notes the conflicting evidence of the parties. Having considered all of the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal finds that the respondent has failed to discharge her burden of proof and in the circumstances the Tribunal finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
However, as there was no loss shown, the Tribunal finds that the maximum award that the Tribunal can make in the circumstances is four weeks’ remuneration. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal awards the claimant €480.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)