EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Laurie Mayes – claimant UD1034/2013
against
Picturehouse Photography Limited – respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr C. Corcoran BL
Members: Mr J. Horan
Mr P. Trehy
heard this claim at Dublin on 23rd September 2014
Representation
Claimant: Mr Paul Hutchinson BL instructed by Sean Ormonde & Co Solicitors,
Suite 9, The Atrium, Canada Street, Waterford
Respondent: In person
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The fact of dismissal was in dispute.
Claimant’s Case
The claimant worked full time, for the respondent, from May 2011 to 14th May 2013. He framed pictures, did deliveries, sales and customer service. Prior to May 2011 he had worked sporadically for the respondent. He had no contract of employment. There was no employee handbook and no disciplinary procedure. The respondent was the boss and would let him know if he did something wrong.
10.00am was the claimant’s starting time for work. On 14th May 2013, the day his employment ended the claimant started work early. He drove the respondent’s van to the shop in Rathmines to collect some equipment and drove to the shop in Swords. He arrived at the Swords shop at about 10.15am. When he was unloading the equipment the respondent came out a door and immediately started venting. The respondent asked the claimant what time did he think it was and told him his start time was 10.00am. The respondent refused to listen when the claimant said he had started early. Two of the claimant’s colleagues were present. The claimant was uncomfortable with the way the respondent spoke to him. Finally the respondent told him to F off and to get the F away. The claimant asked the respondent if he was serious and he replied that he was. The claimant felt that he had no choice but to leave.
As a result of losing his job the claimant had to leave his home because he could no longer afford the rent. Towards the end of May he sought and received his p.45.
The claimant’s former colleague gave evidence. He was conscious of tension between the claimant and the respondent but tried to keep out of it. He arrived with the claimant at the Rathmines shop as arranged at 9.30am. They arrived at the Swords shop at 10.15 or 10.20am and started unloading. The respondent came downstairs and it got heated between him and the claimant. The respondent pointed at the door and the claimant had no choice but to go.
Respondent’s Case
The respondent gave evidence. The claimant worked for him during difficult times. The recession made trading difficult. He opened a second shop to keep the business going but it did not work out. There were times when he had to borrow money to pay wages.
His business is taking family portraits in the studio and he does exhibitions for promotion. He employed the claimant despite his having no qualifications and taught him to do sales and to frame pictures. He worked with the claimant when he was going through a difficult time in his personal life.
The shop in Swords was in a far out location and difficult to get to. The respondent sat down with the claimant and said he could have the company vehicle but he was to bring his colleague to work and bring equipment over. The respondent expected the claimant to set a good example and to be on time. He expected him to be at work in Swords at 10.00am.
On the day in question the claimant arrived at 10.25am. The respondent felt that he had to question it. The claimant did start at 9.30am but he was expected to be at Swords at 10.00am. The respondent asked the claimant what time is this and the claimant flipped. The claimant stood up to the respondent’s face so that the respondent felt threatened and told the claimant to get out. The respondent did not recall swearing at the claimant. The claimant swore at the respondent.
If the claimant came back and apologised the respondent would have accepted it. The respondent did not ask the claimant to return. The respondent was under huge pressure after the claimant left. The claimant was a good framer.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced. It is agreed by both parties that there was a verbal altercation between them on the morning the claimant’s employment ended. The Tribunal finds that the claimant had good grounds for considering he had been dismissed when the respondent told him to leave the premises.
Having decided that the claimant was dismissed the Tribunal looked at the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal. The claimant was summarily dismissed without resort to any procedures and as a consequence of the lack of proper procedures the Tribunal finds that the dismissal was unfair.
The claimant by his actions on the day of dismissal and by his inaction in not making contact with the respondent post dismissal contributed significantly to the outcome. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 succeeds and taking into consideration all the evidence the claimant is awarded the sum of €2,500.00.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)