EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Shauna Woodland - claimant UD1654/2013
against
Next Retail Limited - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr J. Lucey
Members: Mr J. Hennessy
Mr F. Dorgan
heard this claim at Limerick on 22nd April 2015
Representation:
Claimant: Mr Fergus Murrihy of Redundant Workers Centre,
St Mary’s Adult Education Centre, Island Road, Kings Island, Limerick
Respondent: Ms Julie Galbraith of Eversheds, One Earlsfort Centre,
Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal is as follows:
The fact of dismissal was not in dispute.
Summary of the Evidence
The claimant started working for the respondent in July 2008. There were no issues with her work. She was friendly to customers and the other staff members liked her.
The claimant went on certified sick leave in October 2010. She was pregnant at this time and did not return to work before her maternity leave began. She returned to work in August 2011 and the store manager supported her return. The claimant was moved from the Home Department to the Menswear Department where the work was lighter. The claimant was allowed to take rest breaks as needed. She was performing very well at this time and was awarded a certificate of achievement on 3 September 2011. The claimant went on maternity leave towards the end of 2011 and was due to return to work in July 2012. When she did not return the store manager met with her on 21 August 2012 to discuss her absence and review her possible return to work. The store manager met the claimant again on 27 November 2012 and at that time the claimant felt that she could return to work in January 2013.
She did return to work in February 2013. Her attendance was not good but the store manager supported her and allowed her to decide the hours she worked. She was again absent on sick leave from 19 April 2013. She returned to work for a few days in early May but did not work again after 6th May 2013.
The HR Officer wrote to the claimant inviting her to a meeting to discuss her non-attendance at work and warning her that her employment could be terminated on the grounds of incapacity due to ill health. The claimant accompanied by a family support worker met with the HR officer and the store manager 22 October 2013. The claimant was unwell and was having difficulty engaging in the discussion. She was unable to discuss a return to work. When she was informed that her contract was being terminated she showed little reaction.
The HR officer wrote a formal letter of termination to the claimant on 24 October 2013. The claimant was given the right to appeal the decision but did not avail of it.
Determination
The Tribunal considered the evidence adduced and the submissions made in this case. The respondent had a position that required a full time employee. The claimant was a valued employee who unfortunately due to ill health was unable to fulfil her contract of employment.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent has discharged its duty of care to the claimant. The claimant was unfit to work when her contract was terminated and no evidence was adduced to the Tribunal that she has since been certified fit to return to work. The Tribunal finds that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and accordingly the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)