EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Ann Mc Cormack -appellant
RP588/2013
against
Dr Enda Maher and Dr Pierce Maher -respondents
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. T. Ryan
Members: Mr J. Browne
Mr F. Dorgan
heard this appeal at Wexford on 30th May 2014
Representation:
Appellant: Ms Fiona Ormond, M J O'Connor Solicitors,
Confederation House, Cork Road, Waterford
Respondents: Dr. E of the respondents was present at the hearing.
Background and summary:
The respondents are both general medical practitioners and are husband and wife. The appellant initially commenced employment with the respondents in 1976. The dispute between the parties is in relation to the length of service and the figure for wages that should be used in the calculation of the appellant’s redundancy payment.
It was the appellant’s case that she worked for the respondents for the entirety of her employment and without any break in service. The appellant initially worked as a child minder for the respondents from 1976 but a few years later she commenced a role as medical secretary in their practice.
Dr. E was present at the hearing. It was the respondents’ case that there were two breaks in the appellant’s employment. The first break occurred when the appellant undertook a course and later sought a return to work in either 1977 or 1978. A second break occurred in or around 1993/1994 when the other respondent (Dr. P) and his cousin opened another practice and the appellant went to work there. Dr. E stated that she had her own practice at that time within which she employed a secretary. This practice was separate to the previous one she had operated with her husband (Dr.P).
It was Dr. E’s evidence that in 1999 Dr. P became ill and his cousin bought that practice and the appellant remained as his employee. Dr. E stated that she was not the appellant’s employer again until she opened a new practice in 2010 and the appellant had accepted a position in that practice.
It was the appellant’s case that she continued to work for Dr. P until 26 August 2010 when he retired due to ill health. Thereafter she worked with Dr. E until the closure of the practice in 2013. From 28 June 2010 the appellant was placed on a three day week. The appellant’s evidence was that did not accept the reduced hours as her normal week and sought a return to full-time hours, however this was disputed by Dr. E in evidence who stated it was obvious that due to the situation there would not be a return to full-time hours.
On 25 February 2013 the appellant was informed that the practice would be closing. When she attended for work on 13 March 2013 she was informed that she would be paid in lieu of remaining notice. When the appellant sought a redundancy payment she was informed that the partnership between Dr. P and his cousin had ended on 31 August 1999 and it was claimed that Dr. P’s cousin had been her employer from September 1999 to February 2000. However, this was not accepted by the appellant. The appellant stated that the P60s she had received throughout the duration of her employment had stated the respondents to be her employer.
Determination:
The Tribunal is satisfied from the documentary and verbal evidence adduced, that appellant had continuous service with the respondents from at least 1976and that her pay should be taken as the sum paid prior to the reduced hours. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the appellant is entitled to a payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1977 to 2007, based on the following criteria:
Date of commencement: 1 October 1976
Date of termination: 19 April 2013
Gross weekly pay: €407.13
This award is subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)