EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIMS OF: CASE NO.
Michael Healy UD447/2013
- Claimant RP1243/2012
Against
FRS Network Amalgamated Co-Operative Societies Limited
- Respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms B. Glynn
Members: Mr. W. O’Carroll
Ms. H. Henry
heard this claim at Roscommon on 13th March 2014
Representation:
Claimant: Callan Tansey, Solicitors, Crescent House, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
Respondent: Shane O’Dowd, O’Dowd Solicitors, Bridge Street, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
At the outset the claim under the Redundancy Payments acts, 1967 to 2007 was withdrawn.
Background:
The claimant was employed mainly in fencing work for the respondent company. 80% of the respondent’s business was with an Irish rail firm. The claimant originally worked for the respondent as a general operative until 2006 when he left the respondent’s employ to work in the United Kingdom. In August 2007 he returned to Ireland and working for the respondent. In a matter of weeks he was in charge of his own team (one fencer and two helpers). He worked in various locations nationwide often staying overnight.
There were no issues until after the claimant got married and his wife had their child. The claimant was not as keen to travel long distances. Work was allocated for the claimant and his team in Tipperary. The claimant told the Manager (RoD) of is preference not to work so far from home. The claimant did not work after the 29th May 2012.
Respondent’s Position:
Two witnesses (RoD and DoD) for the respondent gave evidence. RoD (Manager) stated there had been no previous issues with the claimant. On his return to live in Ireland in 2007 a position was even created for the claimant. DoD had informed RoD that the claimant had a problem travelling having a young family.
RoD contacted the claimant concerning the job in Tipperary but the claimant would not do it. He wanted to work locally. RoD told the Tribunal that these jobs were performed by a member of staff (GoD) that had longer service than the claimant. A shorter working week was suggested by RoD but the claimant declined the offer. He told the Tribunal that the claimant’s position was not made redundant and another person was taken on to cover the position. The claimant was never told he was dismissed.
In June 2012 the claimant was contacted by the respondent offering work but the claimant declined. In August 2012 RoD met the claimant and mentioned another job in Navan but the claimant again declined saying it was too far a distance to travel.
The claimant was never told he was dismissed.
Claimant’s Position:
The claimant gave evidence. He stated that he had no previous issues travelling for work for the respondent but having a new young family changed matters. He said he informed RoD and another colleague (GoD) on numerous occasions that travelling long distances and staying overnight was an issue because of his young family. He told the Tribunal that he felt there was an understanding about the matter.
He worked his last day for the respondent on the 29th May 2012 but DoD said he would contact him. After a number of weeks he went to speak to RoD. At a later date RoD contacted him regarding work but he was unable to.
He gave evidence of loss.
Determination:
The Tribunal have carefully considered the evidence adduced by both parties in this matter. The Tribunal finds the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and therefore the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)