EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Louise Curran Rafferty T/A Ace Contract Cleaners Naas (appellant) UD87/2013
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Pamela Murphy
(respondent)
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms N. O'Carroll-Kelly BL
Members: Mr F. Cunneen
Mr A. Butler
heard this appeal at Dublin on 21st October 2014
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s) : C. Ryan B.L. instructed by: Ó Riada, Solicitors, Liffey House,
Primrose Hill, Celbridge, Co Kildare
Respondent(s) : L. McDonagh B.L. instructed by: Black & Company, Solicitors, 28 South Frederick Street, Dublin 2.
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
The Parties came before the Tribunal on an employer appeal from a decision of the Rights Commissioners (ref: r-122520-ud-12/DI).
For clarification purposes the appellant will be referred to as employer and the respondent as employee.
The Tribunal has carefully considered all of the evidence adduced during the hearing of the matter.
It was clear from the evidence that the employer had temporary cash flow problems in or around April, 2012. She explained to the employee that she had lost a few contracts and as a result her payment cheque may not clear. She also explained that she had applied for an overdraft and once that was sanctioned by the bank the issue would be resolved. The Tribunal is satisfied that the employer, within a very short space of time paid the employee what was due and owing to her.
The employee was off work for a period of 15 months in 2010 due to a car crash. On her return to work it would seem that there was an issue with her wages. Her tax credits had changed in the intervening period due to the fact that she got married. It would seem that the employer’s accountant made an error in calculating her wages. She was being paid €190 net instead of €190 gross. When the various statutory deductions were made, it is clear that the employee’s net pay was €147.79. There was no evidence to substantiate the employee’s allegation that the employer stated she would deduct money weekly from her wages to pay back the money paid in error. The Tribunal prefer the employer’s evidence when she stated that the error was hers and she was happy to carry the cost of that.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the employee resigned her position and did so when she realised that her tax situation had changed due to her recent marriage.
The employer’s appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Act succeeds and the Tribunal overturns the decision of the Rights Commissioner.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)