EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Peter Jordan UD1069/2013
against
Nicope Limited T/A Print Options
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. P. McGrath BL
Members: Mr. C. McHugh
Mr. A. Butler
heard this claim in Dublin on 29 September 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s):
No legal or trade union representation
Respondent(s):
There was no attendance at the Tribunal hearing by
Diarmuid Lynam, Irish Insolvency Solutions, 32 Fitzwilliam
Place, Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Determination:-
The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence adduced by the Claimant on his own behalf and by J.K. on behalf of the Respondent Company (in liquidation).
The Claimant had worked in the Respondent printing company for 3 years from 2009. Towards the end of 2012 a number of issues arose between himself and his employer (J.K.) and, in particular, the Claimant was not happy to have to submit mileage sheets for expenses he needed to claim for the amount of driving he was doing on behalf of the Company.
Meanwhile, the Claimant had had a row with the Accounts Manager, a person with whom he had never had any rapport who was also the Respondent’s daughter.
The Claimant approached J.K. and was reassured that he would talk to his daughter about her unreasonable behaviour though nothing appears to have been done in this regard.
Separately, the Accounts department was chasing the Claimant down for extra days’ leave that he had taken in 2012 and to which he was not entitled. This again was raised with J.K. (by the Claimant) who again said he’d look into it.
The Claimant’s first pay cheque for 2013 showed a reduced salary which the Claimant took to mean a deduction had been made in the Accounts Office and a measure intended to claw back the loss accruing to the Company arising out of the extra paid leave taken by the Claimant in 2013.
The Claimant found this measure to be absolutely unacceptable and left his employment. He did not notify J.K. of his decision. He simply never returned to the workplace.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence and finds that the Claimant’s decision was made rashly and was not the only alternative open to the Claimant. The Claimant had a Cause of Action under the Payment of Wages legislation regarding the deduction made by the Accounts department. In looking at the whole picture the Tribunal cannot find that the Claimant gave his employer (J.K.) any opportunity to ameliorate the situation. He never spoke with him and never communicated his dissatisfaction with the Accounts department’s unsubtle attempt to recoup its money. In constructive dismissal cases the burden of proof must fall to the Claimant who must establish that the decision to resign is the only decision open to the Claimant who has considered other reasonable alternative approaches. The Claimant has failed this test and his case under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, fails too.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)