UD1238/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:                                                                                                  CASE NO.

Cathy Shevlin – claimant                                                                              UD1238/2013

against

Seán Conlon TD – 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 T. O’Sullivan

                     Mr T. Brady

heard this claim at Dublin on 24th October and 4^th & 5^th December 2014

Representation:

Claimant:       Mr Tom Mallon BL instructed by Ms Emer Holohan of

                        Barry Healy & Company Solicitors, Laurel Lodge, Hillside, Monaghan

Respondent:   On first day:               Ms Frances Meenan BL

                        On second day:           Mr Óisin Quinn SC

Instructed by Kevin O’Higgins Solicitor, Main Street, Blackrock, Co. Dublin

The determination of the Tribunal is as follows:

The fact of dismissal is not in dispute.

Respondent’s Case

The respondent gave evidence. He was elected to Dáil Éireann in June 2011 and he then employed the claimant as a secretarial assistant. She had a contract of employment and an important clause in her contract concerned confidentiality. Her contract also contained a grievance procedure. Any issue that could not be resolved locally should be referred to party headquarters in Dublin.

The claimant’s position was time consuming. She answered the phone, dealt with queries and with personal callers. The respondent also employed a parliamentary assistant (PA) to deal with PR and speech writing.

The respondent felt that he got on well with the claimant. He was a good and fair employer. SC was the third Parliamentary Assistant (PA) he employed. They were in a personal relationship.   Her employment commenced in June 2012.

He was informed by the PA that the claimant had photocopied the sensitive tally information and had given it to politically unsympathetic people. The Chairman of the division instructed the respondent to name the person to whom she gave the information. When the respondent refused the hearing was adjourned for a short time to enable the respondent to take legal advice on the matter.

When the hearing resumed the respondent told the Tribunal the claimant was going to give the information out. This was not the version given to the Tribunal before the adjournment.

He stated that in July 2012 the claimant was given a second oral warning in relation to passing on party members’ lists with mobile numbers. The claimant said that she was entitled to give the information out. The respondent advised her not to give out any information without his authorisation.

In September 2012 the respondent lost a speaking slot in the Dáil because the claimant did not get the message to him. Issues arose between the claimant and the PA. Each complained of being shouted at by the other. He held a meeting with then on 28^th September 2012. He recorded the meeting on his iPhone which he could no longer find. He had not made any copy or transcript of the recording. The claimant went on sick leave after this meeting.

He intended to remain independent and referred on their grievances. The party’s HR Advisor tried to facilitate a mediation process. He asked the claimant to put her complaint in writing and then he would deal with it. She did not respond.

After the failure to convene a mediation process the respondent offered an independent investigation by letter of 17^th January 2013. He requested that the claimant submit her complaint in writing. There was no response to this letter. On 6^th February 2013 the he wrote a further letter and stated that if there was no response by February 13^th 2013 he would presume that the claimant was resigning from her position.

The claimant’s solicitor replied on 8^th February 2013 and sought to clarify who would be investigating. It stated that the claimant had been reluctant to engage in a mediation process when she had not received the PA’s letter of complaint until December on foot of a Data Protection application.

The respondent replied on 25^th February 2013 that he had never intended to investigate himself and the party’s HR advisor would organise an independent investigator. The claimant’s written complaint was sought by 28^th February 2013.

On 25^th February 2013 the respondent was due to attend two meetings in county Monaghan; one at Clones Town Council between 6.30pm and 7.30pm followed by a district party AGM in Carickmacross from 8.30pm until late. A few days prior to this he received notice from a fellow party TD of a party branch meeting on the same evening in Castleblayney, Co Monaghan at 8.45pm. He endeavoured to attend all the meetings but was unable to attend the Castleblayney meeting.   He had posted that morning on his Facebook page that he was going to have a busy evening.

The following morning the respondent looked at his Facebook page. The Monaghan party chairman had posted a message on his page about the previous night’s meetings. He noted the respondent’s apology for not being able to make the Castleblayney meeting, thereby ‘tagging’ him in the post so it appeared on his Facebook newsfeed. The claimant had made a comment underneath this post which read ‘nothing like a bit of self-PR [chairman’s first name] but credit to you at least you go and don’t promote where you’re going and then not turn up’.

The respondent considered this as disloyal and a public criticism of him by his secretary. He believed that the Castleblaney branch meeting had been arranged by the claimant and her husband to clash with the other meetings she would have been aware of and thereby making it impossible for him to attend. Her contract of employment had a clause which stated:

The Employee shall carry out his/her duties in a proper, loyal and efficient manner and shall use his/her best endeavours to promote the Employer’s interests and reputation, and that of the political party of which the Employer is a member (where relevant) and shall not do anything which is or may be harmful to same.

On 1st March 2013 the respondent wrote directly to the claimant about her Facebook post.   He referenced the 1,500 Facebook followers of him and the Chairmen who could view her comment ‘which was politically critical in nature and damaging for my reputation. Your actions and the consequences of same are inexcusable given the fact that you are my secretary.’ He also communicated that he had heard that she had contacted the district chairman to object to the scheduling and location (a premises of the respondent’s) of the recent District AGM which the respondent had organised and that she had sought to have the AGM deemed invalid.

The letter also referred to two oral warnings delivered at meetings in the office in July and August 2012. The letter stated that the first warning was for handing out confidential tally information to a party member without his authority despite clear instructions not to do so. The second warning concerned the distribution of a list of branch members who held voting rights.

The letter stated that the respondent now found himself ‘in a situation where you have again breached the fundamental terms and conditions of your contract of employment with an act of serious misconduct by seeking to publicly undermine my role as an elected representative.’ The claimant was requested to attend a disciplinary meeting at 11am on Thursday 7^th March 2013.

The claimant did not attend the meeting. The respondent issued the letter of dismissal on Thursday 7^th March 2013 following the claimant’s failure to attend the disciplinary meeting. The respondent did not receive a letter, dated 6^th March 2013, from the claimant’s solicitor until Friday 8^th March 2013. The letter stated that the claimant would not be attending the proposed meeting and that they were in consulting their client regarding the matter.

The respondent roundly refuted the claimant’s allegation of bullying and harassment made during the first day of the Tribunal hearing. The claimant had never previously made any complaint of bullying or harassment against the respondent.

The respondent was cross-examined. On September 26^th 2012 the respondent lost a speaking slot in the Dáil as no one had responded from his office. He understood that the claimant had given the Whip’s Office his mobile number but his mobile phone was diverted to the office. He had to share a later speaking slot. He phoned the claimant following this. She said she had been busy in the office and had sent him a text. There was also a phone call between the PA and the claimant. The claimant wanted an apology from the PA after this call. He decided to have a meeting to deal with the situation.

On 26^th September 2012 the claimant left a note at the end of her daily memo to the respondent. The note stated:

‘..if [PA] is not going to be in the office and is awaiting important information/calls from individuals/offices I would suggest this information is relayed to me or for her to contact the relevant person/office and give her contact details to them, this will ensure that no mistakes can be made. Communication is essential in order for the smooth running of the office for everyone.

On 27^th September 2012 the claimant sent an email for the PA’s attention from and to the respondent’s email address. It was a page long list of bullet points outlining office procedure. The respondent considered the tone was like a teacher to a pupil. The PA had helped the claimant with her CV before applying for her role.

On 28^th the respondent called the claimant to a meeting. He recorded the meeting on his phone however he later misplaced this phone and so the recording was not available to the Tribunal. They discussed her email to the PA and office duties. He had a meeting with the PA afterwards. He disputed that there were raised voices during this meeting. A group meeting then took place. He disputed that the PA sat behind the claimant. He did not recall the claimant being hysterical during the meeting. The respondent read out a letter of complaint against the claimant from the PA. He did not give the claimant a copy of the letter. She became upset when he suggested having an independent investigation. He denied preventing her leaving the office. As she was going to her car he said they should discuss things. The claimant then went on sick leave due to work related stress.

He was informed by the Party HR advisor that the claimant made a complaint the following week. He did not forward a copy of the PA’s complaint to the claimant until 22 December 2012 on foot of a Data Protection request. The PA’s view was that the letter should not be forwarded until they had a copy of the claimant’s complaint. In the letter the PA referred to the claimant’s email of 27^th September 2012 and the memo of 26^th September 2012 and stated that ‘the statements in both correspondences are factually inaccurate and are defamatory in nature’ and as the claimant had used the respondent’s email address ‘which all staff members and indeed others, have access to, therefore qualifying them as a public statement’.

He drafted the letter of dismissal with help from his solicitor. He also discussed it with the Party HR Advisor. He had the HR Advisor attend for the proposed disciplinary meeting with the claimant. The claimant was on certified sick leave during this time.

The Party Chairman of the County Executive for Monaghan gave evidence in regard to his Facebook post on 26^th February 2013.

The Party HR Advisor gave evidence. On 1^st October 2012 she was advised that the claimant had sent a letter of complaint to the Party Administrator. An initial mediation meeting was agreed for Wednesday 17^th October 2012, but this was cancelled due to the mediator falling ill. Attempts to agree to a further meeting were unsuccessful as the claimant was unwilling to proceed without a copy of the PA’s letter of complaint. Initial letters were sent in early 2013 regarding an independent investigation, but this was overtaken by the Facebook post on 26^th February 2013.

The respondent drafted the letter of 1^st March 2013 requesting the claimant attend a disciplinary meeting on 7^th March 2013. The letter was posted on Friday 1^st March 2013 by registered post. There was no response from the claimant. She attended Leinster House with the respondent on 7^th March 2013 and waited with the respondent in his office for the claimant. She had the respondent check his email and she phoned the respondent’s solicitor, but he was in London that day. They discussed his options including awaiting his solicitor’s return from London the following day, but the respondent decided to proceed that day with writing and posting the letter of dismissal.

Summary of Claimant’s Case:

The claimant gave evidence. She was a Party member and helped with the respondent’s successful general election campaign. She was employed as a secretarial assistant after being interviewed at the Party’s headquarters.   When her employment commenced a Parliamentary Assistant was already in place. Her duties included office administration, diary and the public constituency office. She worked hard and considered the employment a success.

She contacted the Party Administrator on 14^th September 2012 as she felt under pressure in work. The dynamic had changed. She felt she had no one to turn to in the work environment.

She was on annual leave for a week and returned on 26^th September 2012. The office was very busy between phone calls, emails and public callers. She received a call from the Whip’s office in relation to a speaking slot for the respondent. His mobile phone had been diverted to the office. If he did not contact them soon he would lose the slot, but would get a later one. She sent him a text message but did not get a response. Later she received a phone call from the respondent. He was very annoyed as he had lost the speaking slot. She said he would get a later slot and thought it was resolved but a short time after she received a call from the PA. The PA was very intense in tone and said the claimant had mishandled the situation and said ‘you f**ked up, not me’. The claimant discontinued the call. The respondent then phoned the claimant to rebuke her for hanging up on the PA. She explained why and later texted the respondent seeking an apology from the PA.

The following day the claimant sent an email for the PA’s attention to and from the respondent’s email address as she understood that the PA did not use her own email address. The only people with access to the respondent’s email were the respondent, the PA and the claimant. She did not intend the email to be derogatory. It was not defamatory. Over time there had been certain incidents and roles had blurred. She wanted everyone to be aware of the system that had been set up.   Her note on the memo to the respondent was not intended to be critical. She wrote it as she had been blamed for losing the speaking slot.

On 28^th September 2012 the respondent arrived at the office and pointed at the claimant and the PA and said ‘meeting ten minutes’ and left the office. The claimant was taken aback when the respondent said he was going to record the meeting but reluctantly agreed. He wanted to record it for fairness. He did not want to deal with the situation himself and wanted to pass it on. They discussed her role. He said she was in charge of the office and ‘his eyes and ears’. He said it was not the PA’s role to answer phones which she queried.

The respondent and the PA had a meeting following that. There were raised voices. The claimant knocked and asked them to quiet down in case someone came into the office. Then there was a group meeting. The PA sat behind the claimant so she was between the respondent and the PA. She felt in the firing line. The respondent spoke about their roles and the claimant’s email. The PA said it insinuated that she did not know how to work in an office when she was a professional with experience. The respondent then said the PA had drafted a letter which he proceeded to read out. The claimant felt threatened and intimidated and asked for the meeting to stop. She said they were both legally trained (the PA is a Barrister and the respondent is a Solicitor) and that she was a secretary. She said she was not happy with the tone of the meeting. By then she was crying and said the meeting was over and left the room to collect her coat and keys. The respondent put his arm across the door and asked her to stay but she insisted on leaving.

She drove to a local park and phoned her husband. Later she phoned the Party Administrator about the meeting being recorded and not getting a copy of the letter. She was told she should have received a copy of the letter. She wrote to the Party Administrator the following Monday to request an independent formal investigation. She attended her GP and was certified ill. She remained on certified sick leave until her dismissal. Her sick leave was never challenged or queried.

By letter of 15^th October 2012 the claimant agreed, on certain conditions, to a mediation process and sought a copy of the PA’s letter and a copy of the phone recording. The mediation meeting set for 17^th October 2012 was cancelled due to the mediator’s illness.

In regard to the March 1^st 2013 letter: She disputed having attempted to have the AGM deemed invalid. She disputed ever having the tally information or giving it to a third party. She disputed ever having received a verbal warning for this. Regarding the second alleged verbal warning the claimant was satisfied that she had not given any members’ information to the (disputed) person in question. She disputed ever having received a verbal warning for this. She did not believe she had breached any terms and conditions of her contract.

In regard to the claimant’s Facebook post: The claimant maintained that her post had not been directed at the respondent but rather she had been referring to herself. Since the incident with the respondent she had been in an emotional state and could not face going to Party meetings. She intended to but always backed out. She did not realise it would appear on the respondent’s Facebook page. She had not seen the respondent’s earlier post.

In regard to the disciplinary meeting: She received the letter on Monday 4^th March 2013 and contacted her solicitor. Her solicitor contacted the respondent to communicate that they would not be attending the meeting. She felt extremely pressurised. On a practical level she had three children to organise and on an emotional level she was not in the right place. She had not expected the meeting to proceed. She was then notified of her dismissal with two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. Not long afterwards she was certified fit to work. She found alternative employment on a part-time basis in the summer of 2013. She was also in receipt of a carer’s allowance.  

Determination:

The Tribunal have carefully considered all of the evidence adduced over the three day hearing together with the documentation submitted.

The claimant is alleging she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with the respondent. The respondent is alleging that the circumstances surrounding the claimants dismissal satisfy the criteria pursuant to Section 6 (4) (b) of the Act,

S 6(4)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following

Furthermore, by letter dated the 14^th October, 2014 the respondent denied the claimant was unfairly dismissed and stated:-

(a)   The claimant was dismissed by reason of her conduct

(b)  The claimant was dismissed for serious misconduct in breach of her contract of employment is seeking to undermine the respondent as an elected representative.

(c)   The claimant was provided with an opportunity to respond to the matters raised but failed to attend the proposed meeting or contact her employer. The claimant’s solicitors later confirmed by facsimile following her dismissal that the claimant would not be attending the said proposed meeting and did not communicate further.

(d)  There is a background of oral warnings. . There were also offers of medication and the appointment of an independent investigator yet such were refused by the claimant..

(e)   In the circumstances, the respondent was left with no alternative but to terminate the employment of the claimant as there was a breach of trust by the claimant.

1. The claimant gave or was going to give sensitive tally information to a third party.

The respondent gave evidence initially that the claimant gave confidential sensitive tally information to a third party. When pressed by the Tribunal to disclose the name of the individual to whom she gave the information, the respondent refused to do so on the grounds that it was politically sensitive. The Tribunal afforded the respondent time to take advice on the matter and presumably having done so, changed his evidence to, the claimant was going to give sensitive tally information to a third party. The Claimant stated that following a request from GK for the information she asked the Respondent if she could have it and if she could give it to GK. GK was on the County Executive with the claimant. The respondent told the claimant not to give the information to GK and she did not. The respondent was informed by SC, his fiancée and Parliamentary Secretary and she saw the claimant photocopy the information following the respondent’s instructions not to disclose it. SC was not called to give evidence in this regard, nor was the person to whom the information was allegedly given.

The respondent stated that he gave the claimant an oral warning in relation to the matter. No written record of that warning was introduced in evidence. The claimant did not receive correspondence from the respondent in relation to an oral warning. It was not logged on her personnel file. The respondent is a qualified solicitor and is a member of the Dail. He has access to all and any legal information required to ensure his staff’s employments rights are not infringed. If the claimant was given an oral warning the Tribunal would have expected to see correspondence between the parties in relation to it and would have expected it to have been noted on her personnel file.

Based on the inconsistences in the respondent’s evidence and the lack of evidence corroborating his version of the event, the Tribunal prefer the claimant’s evidence in this regard and find that she did not have access to the information and did not in fact disclose this information to a third party. Furthermore, the Tribunal find that the claimant did not receive an oral warning from the respondent.

ii) Gave a confidential members list to a third party.

The respondent stated that Fine Gael headquarters had sent a members list and their possible voting preferences to him in or around August, 2012. Work had been done on this list to establish strong and weak areas and it was that information that was strictly confidential. The respondent stated that the claimant asked SC, his parliamentary secretary, for the list in order to give it to a third party who was thinking of running in the next local election. The respondent called a meeting with the claimant. At that meeting he told her that if the information was given out he would fire her. . He conceded that it was not given out but believed it was her intention to do so. The claimant stated that she did ask the respondent if she could hand it out and he said “ yes” however she didn’t actually ever hand it out. Both parties are in agreement that the information was not given to the third party. It is for that reason that the tribunal find the respondent’s evidence that he gave the claimant an oral warning in relation to this issue not creditable. If the Tribunal were to take the respondent’s evidence at face value, the claimant could only have received an oral warning based on the respondent`s assumption that she “intended to give out the information’ That is not an appropriate use of disciplinary sanction. In any event, as with the previous matter no documentary evidence was adduced to corroborate the respondent’s evidence that an oral warning was actually given. The Tribunal prefer the claimant’s evidence in this regard and find that she did not receive an oral warning in relation to this matter.

iii) Failed to pass on Dail Speaking Slot information to the Respondent.

In September, 2013 the claimant was in the office on her own when a call came through from the Whips office. The caller told the claimant that the respondent’s mobile was diverted to the office and that she had a slot for him. She said she would hold the slot for a short period of time and then she would have to give it to somebody else. A later slot was also available. The claimant stated that she made all attempts to contact the respondent but failed to do so within the time allowed by the Whips office. The claimant then received a call from SC who gave out to her about the loss of the slot and told her “you fucked up here, not me” The Respondent contested this statement however he was not privy to that conversation and SC was not called to give evidence. The already fractured relationship between the claimant and SC rapidly deteriorated from here onwards. The claimant in an attempt to establish proper work practices, e-mailed SC a document setting out how things were to be done in the office. SC was offended by this. By letter of the 28^th September, 2012 she requested the Respondent to “call a meeting with [the claimant] as a matter of urgency”. She was of the opinion that the claimant’s correspondence was “factually inaccurate and defamatory”. In an attempt to mend the relationship between the claimant and SC the respondent called an impromptu meeting at his offices in Ballybay. That meeting ended up with the claimant alleging she, in a very distressed state, due to SC allegations, was falsely imprisoned in the office by the respondent. That allegation is contested by the respondent. Whether or not there is any truth in this allegation is not a matter for this Tribunal but what is clear is that this meeting broke down following SC’s letter being read out which said letter contained allegations against the claimant. The purpose of the meeting was to mend the relationship between the two secretaries. The result was something very different.

The respondent stated that up until the summer of 2012 he had a very good working relationship with the claimant. He trusted her and stated that she was his eyes and ears. That good working relationship began to deteriorate in the summer of 2012. It is worth noting that SC was employed as the respondent’s parliamentary secretary in the summer of 2012.

The Tribunal note that the claimant did not receive a warning in relation to the loss of the Dail slot. That issue got lost in the interpersonal matter between the claimant and SC. The respondent felt it appropriate to bring in an independent mediator. It should be noted that the disciplinary process was never invoked in relation to this matter and the claimant did not receive a warning.

The claimant initially agreed to mediation however changed her mind when SC threatened to sue her husband in relation to another matter.

The claimant due to work related stress was certified unfit to work from the 24^th September, 2012. Her medical certificates were furnished to the respondent at Leinster House weekly. She remained on certified sick leave until she was dismissed on the 7^th March, 2013. The Respondent wrote to the claimant on several occasions whilst she was on sick leave requesting that she engage in an investigation and that she “document and submit to me in writing the details of your complaint.” On the 17^th January, 2013 the respondent wrote to the claimant and stated “I understand that you do not wish to avail of the Mediation process which has been offered to try and resolve the issues which have arisen. As your employer, I therefore intend to initiate an investigation process into the concerns raised by both yourself and staff member SC” I intend to appoint an independent investigator to examine yours and SC’s concerns and to report on whether any staff member has been treated inappropriately or unfairly. Following receipt of the investigation report I will then decide what action, if any, is appropriate” It is unclear whether SC was ever furnished with a letter requesting her to set out her complaint and putting her on notice that she too would be investigated and that action would be taken against her, if appropriate. As a matter of fairness and also to demonstrate impartiality, the Tribunal would have expected to see correspondence with SC in relation to the matter also.

By letter dated the 6^th February, 2013 the Respondent stated “as you have not availed of the mediation option or responded to my efforts to initiate a formal investigation, I can only assume that you do not wish to proceed with your complaint. I feel that I have made every effort to put in place a mechanism to try and hear yours and SC’s concerns but your failure to respond or participate has made it impossible to progress this matter. It is not appropriate that you continue to remain on sick leave and not engage in any process to address the issues that have arisen. It is also not possible to facilitate your return to work until the issues have been addressed. Your failure to engage in a process to resolve the matter is not a situation I can allow to continue and puts your continued employment at risk” This letter amounts not only to a breach of the claimant’s rights but to a threat. To threaten an employee, who is on work related stress certified sick leave that if she doesn’t concede to her employers demands forthwith her continued employment is in jeopardy is wholly inappropriate. Furthermore, it was inappropriate for the respondent to be corresponding with the claimant at all during this period as the cause of her work related stress lay with both the respondent and SC. All correspondence in relation to the issues with SC should have been postponed until she, the claimant, was certified fit to return to work. If the respondent had any doubts as to the veracity of the medical certificates or her ongoing condition it was open to him to have her independently assesses. He did not do so. It was not for him or this Tribunal to look behind the medical certificates or to question their validity, particularly in the absence of a contrary medical opinion.

The purpose of mediation is to iron out conflicts and to try and achieve a mutually acceptable solution. It is not to apportion blame and make demands of individuals to achieve one’s own subjective solution.

iv) Facebook post.

On the 26^th February, 2013 the claimant posted a comment on the facebook page of JS. It stated:-

“ nothing like a bit of self pr joe but credit to you at least you go and don’t promote where your going and then not turn up”

The claimant’s evidence that this comment was about herself is not creditable. It is clearly about the respondent and his failure to make the Castleblayney meeting. It is a comment that is inappropriate and should not have been made. The respondent wrote to the claimant personally on the 1^st March, 2013, despite her having solicitors on record, not only in relation to the facebook matter but raised an issue in relation to the validity of an AGM. The respondent in his letter comes to a conclusion on the claimant’s conduct, in the absence of an investigation, explanation from the claimant and/ or statement or explanation from District Chairman when he states “your actions in this regard as my employee are inappropriate and seek to undermine my position. Furthermore, the statements in relation to the oral warnings at paragraph 7 and 8 are inconsistent with the respondents own evidence during the course of this hearing. The respondent requests the claimant to attend a disciplinary meeting to explain her actions without any attempt to carry out an investigation prior to same and with full knowledge that the claimant was still on certified sick leave. The claimant should not have been requested to attend a disciplinary meeting or any other meeting during this period. The claimant did not attend the meeting. Her solicitors informed the respondent’s she would not be attending. The respondent stated he did not have knowledge of that fact until after he dismissed her. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the claimant’s actions did warrant some disciplinary sanction it was wholly inappropriate to dismiss her whilst she was on sick leave and prior to a full investigation and disciplinary hearing on the matter.

By letter dated the 7^th March, 2013 the respondent formally dismissed the claimant. The grounds for dismissal are limited to the Facebook issue. The letter is silent as to any other previous disciplinary sanctions. The letter is also silent on the claimant’s right to appeal the decision to dismiss her. This too is a breach of the claimant’s right to fair procedures.

The Tribunal finds that there were a litany of breaches of the claimant’s employment rights and basic right to fair procedures. Some of these breaches where more serious than others. Aligned to the aforementioned breaches there were a number of inconsistency in the respondent’s evidence.

The Tribunal finds that the claimant’s claim pursuant to the Unfair Dismissal Act succeeds.

The claimant was on illness benefit up until the 10^th May, 2013. Thereafter, she was in receipt of a carer’s allowance. She did work in a local store for 15 hours per week. She is only permitted to work 15 hours per week if in receipt of a carer’s allowance. She stated in evidence that prior to her dismissal her husband cared for the children and would have continued to do so indefinitely. It was always their intention for her to continue on in her employment with the respondent and for her husband to continue being the children’s primary carer. Had she not been dismissed the Tribunal is of the belief that that is exactly what would have happened.

The Tribunal awards the claimant the sum of € 25,000.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)