RP796/2012

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

                                                                                                                                     APPEAL OF: CASE NO.

Anna Gowin

                                                                                                                                           RP796/2012

against

MK Human Resources Limited T/A Temple Recruitment

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Ms N. O'Carroll-Kelly BL

Members: Mr A. O'Mara

Mr F. Keoghan

heard this appeal at Dublin on 21st March 2014 and 29th July 2014

Representation:

_______________

Appellant: O'Hanrahan & Company, Solicitors, Lexington House,

71 Ballybough Road, Fairview, Dublin 3

Respondent: Ms Geraldine Doherty, Temple Recruitment, Crescent

Building, Northwood, Santry, Dublin 9 and

James H Murphy & Son, Solicitors, 17 Francis Street, Dundalk, Co Louth

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Background:

The respondent is a recruitment agency supplying employees to various employers. The claimant worked for RA (they being the end user) 2011 and went on maternity leave in August 2011. Her maternity leave ran to February 2012. GD gave evidence for the respondent saying that she spoke to the claimant in her offices on 27th January 2012. The claimant asked if her job was still available and GD told her it was but she needed an exact date of return and she would be able to place her. The claimant told her that she was looking for other jobs but would let her know. In March the claimant rang looking for references and a P45. That was the last thing he respondent heard until the claim before the Tribunal. The claimant denied calling to the office and said she was in Poland on the date of the alleged meeting. From conversations with a colleague and her husband (who also worked for the respondent) she heard that people were let go at the end of October 2011 and there would be no job for her. She contacted C.I.C. who advised her that her job was protected while on maternity leave. She said that GD told her there was no position when she rang her in January 2012, but there may be something in the future.

Determination:

The respondent adduced evidence that just before the claimants maternity leave they made contact with each other. How contact was made was an issue for the parties, however the Tribunal are satisfied that in January 2012 the respondent and the claimant spoke to one another in relation to the claimants return to work. The respondent stated that all it needed was a return to work date in order to place the claimant. They stated that there is always work available. The evidence given by GD supports that. The respondent company grew from 90 in 2011 to 230 in 2014. The claimant stated that she was informed by GD that no positions were available at that time. GD stated that the claimant was an excellent employee and to date there is still a position for her with the respondent.

The Tribunal prefers the respondents evidence and find that no redundancy situation existed at the material time or at any time within the respondent company. The appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007, fails.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

(CHAIRMAN)