EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Catherine Murray – Appellant RP880/2012
Against
Brendan Guilfoyle T/A Amour Nurseries - Respondent
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms O. Madden B.L.
Members: Mr C. Lucey
Mr M. O'Reilly
heard this appeal at Dublin on 21st August 2013 and 26th February 2014
Representation:
Appellant: Mr John Kane, Siptu, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1
Respondent: Mr. Eoin McDonald, James A Boyle & Co, Solicitors, Claregate St,
Kildare, Co Kildare
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Respondent’s Case:
The respondent is a horticultural business. It is a seasonal business, the season running from around April to end September each year.
The appellant had worked for the respondent for fourteen years and was a senior employee. She worked a twenty hour week. The respondent and the appellant came to an arrangement whereby the respondent would continue to pay the appellant during the lay off period and the appellant would then work extra hours in lieu of these payments during the busy periods over the following year.
Because of a harsh winter lay off commenced earlier than usual in 2011 beginning on 31st August 2011. The appellant was furnished with a P45 to allow her to claim social welfare payments over the winter months.
In March 2012 the respondent discussed the appellant’s return to work beginning in April 2012 and the she reported for duty on 2nd April 2012. On 4th April 2012 before the respondent left for lunch he left an instruction for the appellant to carry out a particular job. When the respondent returned he noticed that the job had not been done properly and he lost the rag and shouted at the appellant. The appellant then told him that she did not have to put up with this anymore and walked off the job at lunch time. He later texted the appellant apologising for his behaviour that day but received no response to his text. This was the first time in fourteen years that a heated argument had taken place.
The respondent had expected a response to his text and as he heard nothing further from the appellant she was replaced in her role on 10th April 2012.
The respondent did not make the appellant redundant.
Appellant’s Case:
The appellant’s employment began on 5th April 1997. Her work was seasonal. She was not furnished with a contract of employment. She usually worked from April to end September each year. The respondent and the appellant came to an arrangement whereby she was paid while she was on lay-off in the winter months and she worked up extra hours in lieu of these payments during the busy periods the following year.
On 31st August 2011 the respondent furnished her with a P45. She took her P45 to the social welfare office in Kildare. She was asked if she was being furnished with her redundancy payment. She asked the respondent for her payment as the understood she was being made redundant.
She returned to work on 2 April 2012. On 4th April 2012 an argument ensued between the appellant and the respondent. She could not believe the respondent spoke to her in such a manner. The appellant was very upset and told the respondent she was going home. She had completed her week’s work at 3.30 pm that day.
The appellant wrote to the respondent on 29 May 2012 and 9 July 2012 seeking her redundancy payment.
The appellant did not receive her redundancy payment.
Determination:
The Tribunal is only concerned with the relevant period 2nd April 2012 to 4th April 2012.
There was no evidence put before the Tribunal to support a claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 and therefore the appeal must fail.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)