EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD324/2014
CLAIM(S) OF:
Fergal O'Loughlin
- claimant
Against
Novellen
(Formally)
Rimec
– respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. McGrath B.L.
Members: Mr C. Lucey
Mr F. Barry
heard this claim at Dublin on 13th May 2015
Representation:
Claimant(s) : In person
Respondent(s) : no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Determination
The claimant issued unfair dismissals proceedings against the respondent company known as Rimec (company number 208536) at an address at 24-26 City Quay, Dublin 2. The claimant had been employed by Rimec since 2008 and the company’s address and the claimant’s place of employment at that time was at 221/223 Lower Rathmines Road, Dublin 6. The Tribunal notes that Rimec’s registered address was changed in and around the 17 of October 2013.
The claimant’s employment terminated on the 26 August 2013 and the claimant’s workplace relations complaint form was received on the 25 February 2014 and the respondent was notified at the address at 24-26 City Quay, Dublin 2 pursuant to the change of registered office address notification recorded in the Companies Registration Office.
Subsequently, it is noted that the same company Rimec (company number 208536) had its name formally changed from Rimec to Novellen on the 15 April 2014. The registered address was also changed, as notified to the Companies Registration Office as being at 39 Northumberland Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.
The respondent did not make an appearance before the Tribunal to resist the claimant’s contention that he was unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is in order that the entity known as Rimec and the entity known as Novellen are one and the same entity for the purpose of these proceedings and all the relevant information needed to reach this conclusion is borne out on an examination of the relevant Companies Registration Office notices and records.
In addition the Tribunal notes that the claimant was approached by a summons server acting for and on behalf of a company integrally associated with Novellen formally Rimec in the Tribunal hearing room at the commencement of the day’s hearing. The Tribunal concluded that the personnel of the respondent company therefore knew and were on notice that these proceedings were listed for hearing and had opted not to attend the proceedings, as is their prerogative. A solicitor nominated by Novellen as presenter on the Companies Registration Office documentation was contacted but knew nothing of the proceedings.
In these circumstances the Tribunal went on to hear the claimant’s case in the absence of the respondent. The Tribunal did give consideration to the T2 form which had been submitted by the respondent in reply to the work place relations complaint form.
The claimant gave evidence that he was returning from annual leave on the 26 August 2013 and was met by the managing director/owner of the company (MO’S) and brought to a meeting with the chief financial officer (CF). At the meeting certain very serious allegations were made. The claimant had no notice of the meeting and at the end he was escorted from the building never to return again. By letter of the 2 September 2013 the financial officer (CF) confirmed that the actions taken by the company on that date were to be taken as a termination of employment by reason of gross misconduct.
In his evidence the claimant refuted in the most strenuous terms any and all allegations of gross misconduct and the solicitors’ correspondence (28 August - 13 November 2013) opened to the Tribunal in the course of the claimant’s evidence sets out his consistent explanation and / or denial of the allegations made.
It is in this letter/email of the 2 September 2013 that the allegations being made against the claimant are clearly set out, having only been put orally to the claimant on the 26 August 2013.
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the respondent acted reasonably when summarily dismissing the claimant without notice for gross misconduct. The Tribunal has not been so satisfied and looks at the complete lack of fair procedures or any procedures whatsoever. The Tribunal must accept the uncontested evidence of the claimant who states he was brought in to a meeting and dismissed without any opportunity to consider any of the evidence or formulate any reply. The claimant did not accept any wrongdoing had occurred and therefore was in effect placing an onus on the respondent to conduct an investigation. No investigation was ever conducted or even considered. The company moved to terminate and must therefore face the consequences of their decision. The Tribunal finds that this termination was unsatisfactory and unfair in all the circumstances.
The Tribunal heard evidence regarding mitigation and accepts the claimant’s evidence that he was nearly seven months out of work and therefore at a loss of salary and bonus for that period of time. The Tribunal awards the claimant €66,980.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)