EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Witold Zabawa, RP617/2013
MN583/2014
against
Apcon Developments Limited,
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. C. Corcoran BL
Members: Mr. T.P. Flood
Mr. F. Keoghan
heard this appeal in Dublin on 12 August 2014
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s):
No legal or trade union representation
Respondent(s):
No legal representation
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The appellant claimed that his employment, which commenced on 7 July 2008, ended with only two days’ notice by reason of redundancy on 3 May 2013. His gross weekly pay was €423.00.
The respondent’s submission was that, on 1 May 2013, it had told the appellant that there was a decreased amount of work for him and that he would be on a three-day week until it got busier. However, the appellant maintained the position that he wanted full-time work and declined to accept a reduction to a three-day week.
Giving sworn testimony assisted by a Tribunal-appointed interpreter, the appellant said that he had worked for the respondent (a construction company specialising in conservation and renovation) for four years and nine months. He worked as a general operative. Asked if he had mixed cement, he replied that he had done painting work.
The appellant said that on 1 May 2013 JOR (the respondent’s managing director) had said that there was no more fulltime work and that there would be a three-day week. The appellant replied that he would speak to his partner.
The appellant told the respondent that he wanted fulltime work. The appellant went to Social Welfare and asked about his rights. He was told that he would get benefit for the other two days not included in a three-day week. However, he would not receive help with his rent. He needed to house himself, his partner and the one of his two children not living in Poland.
After three weeks the appellant got work with TX (a large company). He initially combined this with some farm work in advance of getting fulltime work. He now had living accommodation for his family. He said that there had been a possibility of two days’ work per week from the respondent’s related contacts but that this would involve a long commute from Dublin to Naas. There had been a van pick-up facility in Dublin. The appellant told the Tribunal that he got fully paid by the respondent up to Friday 3 May 2013 but that the respondent had not called him to any meeting before the end of his work for the respondent.
Under cross-examination, the appellant did not deny that the respondent had got him some house-painting work when the respondent did not need him but insisted that he had wanted to be sure of full-time work every week.
Giving sworn testimony, JOR (accompanied by COR, a brother director) said that work had picked up for the respondent and that the appellant would have been back working for the respondent from September 2013 if he had not left when he was to have been put on a three-day week. JOR accepted that the respondent had had it “rough” but said that the respondent had connections to have given the appellant work much nearer to Dublin city than Naas. The respondent’s position was that the appellant had left because he had got used to being picked up and did not fancy displacing himself to sites not easily reached.
Under cross-examination, the brothers accepted that the appellant had been a good worker and said that there had been no wish to let him go.
Determination:
Having carefully considered all testimony heard from both sides, the Tribunal decides, on the basis of the evidence heard, that the appellant had resigned his post with the respondent.
The appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, and the claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005, fail.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)