EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Eduardo Garbagnati UD1460/2013
Against
Sign-A-Rama (Cork) Limted T/A Sign-A-Rama
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr K. Buckley
Members: Ms M. Sweeney
Ms. P. Doyle
heard this claim at Cork on 3rd December 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: Mr Shane Healy, Healy O'Connor, Solicitors, Quay House,
Fitton Street, Off South Mall, Cork
Respondent: In person
Respondent’s case:
The owner of the business told the Tribunal that he hired the claimant as a professional sign maker but it became clear after a period of time that he was not following instruction and his work was not done to his satisfaction. After a considerable period of time he deduced that it was a language problem. The claimant is Spanish and did not have a good command of the English language. He asked that the claimant try to improve and was assured that he world.
The owner did terminate the claimant’s contract but as he was firefighting to keep his business alive he hired a capable sales person/sign maker to try and save the business. He was unaware of his obligations to the claimant but his accountant advised him of statutory redundancy figures. The amount due was made out in post-dated cheques but when the claimant took his case for Unfair Dismissal he put a stop on the cheques.
The owner told the Tribunal that his efforts to retain his business were unsuccessful and that he had now ceased trading.
Claimant’s case:
The claimant told the Tribunal that he had his own business in Spain for over 10 years. His contract with the respondent was as sign maker, there was never any mention of sales. He did a six month probation period and was never advised of any issues or difficulties except for one complaint regarding a sign. He asked for leave to travel to Argentina in April 2013, as his mother was ill and was told by the respondent that the business was going bad and that he was being “let go”.
On his return from holidays he realized that another person was doing his job. The claimant was unaware of his entitlements, sought advice and e-mailed the respondent. He was told that the redundancy was for commercial reasons and by agreement with both parties but he had no discussion or no consultation and had agreed nothing. He was asked to sign a letter as well as an RP50 but refused to do so. He got five the post-dated cheques from the respondent’s accountant, the first one in August 2013 for an amount of €300. He cashed it but was unable to cash any of the others.
Determination:
Having carefully considered the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the respondent. There were major deficiencies in the manner in which a purported redundancy was implemented with no adherence to fair policy or procedure.
The Tribunal finds that under the Unfair Dismissal Acts, 1977 to 2007 the claimant was unfairly dismissed and taking into consideration the payment already made under the Redundancy Payments Act, the Tribunal awards the claimant a further €20,000.00 as compensation under the above Acts.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)