EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Janine Zanon UD656/13
- claimant
against
GSPCA
- respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms C. Egan B L
Members: Mr T. Gill
Ms H. Henry
heard this claim at Galway on 3rd October 2014.
Representation:
Claimant: Ms Rebecca MacCana BL, instructed by Kennedy Fitzgerald, Solicitors, The Waterfront, Bridge Street, Galway
Respondent: Ms Montgomery of the respondent company.
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This being a case of constructive dismissal it fell to the claimant to present her case first.
Claimant’s Case:
The respondent is an animal rescue voluntary organisation and a registered charity. Officers are at the forefront of animal welfare; they respond to allegations of cruelty, neglect and abuse and also aid sick and injured animals.The claimant commenced employment in 2002 as a Field Officer through a FAS programme. She commenced full time employment with the respondent in 2006 and worked a 40 hour week. She was provided with protective clothing. G trained her in on the job. Her duties included taking phone calls, attending school talks and rescuing animals. Following a telephone call to the organisation, she assessed the situation upon her arrival and often would have to call the vet or the Gardai to the scene. She reported to HC.
In the period 2009 to 2012 she worked in a part time capacity. Her working week was reduced to a three day week. She covered an area in a county in the west of Ireland. A new van was provided by the respondent in 2006. The claimant deemed the van not to be roadworthy. She flagged her concerns with the respondent but to no avail. The claimant stated that there were no grievance procedures in place in the organisation. She did not attend a refresher course in Dublin due to the pressure of work.
The van contained two cages but the claimant stated that there was no proper division between the cages and the cab. As a result she claimed her health suffered badly.
In February 2012 the claimant suffered ill health. She stated that she was threatened by members of the travelling community and that members of that community knew where she lived and followed her on one occasion. As a result she suffered from panic attacks.
The claimant said her complaints were ignored by the organisation and that she had not received proper support. When she spoke to HC about dangerous situations she said she was advised at all times “to get out of there”.
The claimant was passionate about her job. But following a period of sick leave, and on the advice of her GP, she resigned from her position on 10th August 2012.
She secured alternative work for a three week period in September 2012 and then secured seasonal work for approximately a three month period in 2013.
Respondent’s Case:
BF, who commenced working as a volunteer with the organisation, secured a field officer position approximately a year ago. He had accompanied the claimant on field trips and initially had a good working relationship with her, but that relationship broke down after some time.
In the course of his employment he has always firstly assessed situations. If such a situation is at risk he would meet the Gardai beforehand and put a plan of action in place. He would always keep in contact with HC. BF has always put his safety first.
HC is Chairperson of the organisation and assumed that role in 2005. On commencement of that role, HC recognised that the claimant needed support in her position. If the claimant found herself in a difficult or unsafe position HC insisted that she contact her. The witness stated that there were constant complaints from staff regarding the claimant’s behaviour and HC issued the claimant with several verbal warnings. The claimant was independent and liked to work alone. She loved a challenge and was very authoritative. The claimant had been passionate about animals but on occasion the witness had to intervene with parties in order to defuse situations in which the claimant had become involved.
The witness stated that the claimant had financial problems and HC helped her out. HC had gone to significant lengths to assist the claimant deal with her difficulties in the job. HC discussed a change of career with her but the claimant did not want to leave her job. The claimant walked out on 4th March 2012. HC telephoned her and the claimant said she was not coming back. Her job was still open for her in the following months.
Determination:
This being a claim for constructive dismissal the onus of proof in the matter rested with the claimant. Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced, including the supporting documentation submitted, and the oral submissions made, the Tribunal is satisfied that the onus of proof had not been discharged to the Tribunal’s satisfaction.
The Tribunal is satisfied that HC was very supportive to the claimant during her tenure. HC had gone to significant lengths to assist her deal with her difficulties in the job, and had even discussed a change of career. Even though the claimant did not want to leave her job she walked out on 4 March 2012 and did not return despite her job being available to her.
The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)