EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
UD1563/12
Employee - claimant
Against
Employer - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. McGrath B.L.
Members: Mr C. Lucey
Ms. E. Brezina
heard this claim at Dublin on 20th January 2014, 3rd March 2014
Representation:
Claimant: In person on the 20th January and no attendance or representation by or on
behalf of the claimant on the 3rd March 2014
Respondent: Byrne Wallace, Solicitors, 88 Harcourt Street, Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Respondent’s Case:
The respondent is a local authority located in Dublin. JF is Senior Executive Engineer working in road maintenance services area. Five engineers report to JF. JF reports to J McD. Approximately 200 employees work in this section with 100 contractors, 20 of whom were engineers. The section is based in HQ. The claimant had reported to SB. The claimant came under JF’s remit in April 2011. JF looked after the claimant’s attendance only while the claimant reported to JMcD on work matters.
In January 2011 after the very severe winter it was necessary to get the roads operational again.
The budget doubled and JF put in a request for extra staff.
The claimant raised concerns about other employees. He said employees were pursuing him unfairly and plotting against him. JF spoke to the management side and all were finding it difficult to manage the claimant. The claimant’s time keeping and leave applications were all difficult to manage. Core hours of work were 10.30 a.m. to 3.30 pm. The witness had a number of issues such as the claimant handing in copies of medical certificates, the claimant not attending work during core times and the claimant clocking in late.
On 6th January 2012 JF met the claimant concerning the claimant’s applications for leave. SF made his decisions and emailed them to the claimant on 9th January 2012. He was happy with the decisions he had made regarding the leave applications.
It was agreed that the matter would resume for a full two days on the 3rd and 4th of March 2014 and that no further delays could be countenanced.
Determination
The Tribunal has carefully considered the circumstance which it has been presented with. This case has been listed for the two days of the 3rd and 4th of March 2014 and these days were fixed on the 20th of January 2014 the last day the parties were before the Tribunal. On the January date, the claimant arrived two hours late to the Tribunal and consequently the Tribunal has only heard evidence from one witness on behalf of the respondent who continues to be under cross-examination.
A number of postponement applications were made in the days preceding the resumed hearing dates but these were refused and the matter was due to proceed on the morning of the 3rd of March 2014 in the ordinary way.
On the morning of the 3rd March the Tribunal received a number of fax communications including a letter from the claimant wherein an adjournment was sought in circumstances where a medical appointment in Newry for 9a.m. on the 3rd of March 2014 clashed with the Tribunal’s expectation that the claimant would attend at 10.30a.m on the same morning. The Tribunal notes that the letter of notification from the Medical Support Service is dated the 18th of February 2014 and the Tribunal has not been advised as to what attempt the claimant made to postpone same. This medical examination related to qualification for illness benefit only.
An attempt was made at the direction of the Tribunal by the solicitor acting for and on behalf of the respondent to contact the claimant. The purpose of this communication was to put the claimant on notice of the fact that the respondent intended to make an application to strike out this case for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal through its secretariat also attempted to contact the claimant who had left his phone number in the Tribunal offices at circa 10.15a.m. on the morning of 3rd of March 2014.
The claimant has failed, refused and neglected to return the calls made to him and the Tribunal must therefore rely on the claimant’s letter of the 3rd of March 2014, a photocopy of a medical report of the 26th of February 2014 and the letter of appointment of the 18th of February 2014 as the best evidence presented by the claimant to resist the application to have his case struck out for want of prosecution.
In making the submission on behalf of the respondent employer the English case of Tyica Riley .v. The Crown Prosecution Service (2013) EWCA Civ 951 was opened to the Tribunal. Whilst this case is not authority in this jurisdiction the conclusions reached are pertinent insofar as the case outlines that any Court or Tribunal is under an obligation to deal with cases justly and expeditiously and without unreasonable expense and that this is an entitlement of both parties to litigation.
On balance the Tribunal finds it is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the application seeking to have this case struck out for want of prosecution and the case under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)