EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Eddie Barry UD634/2014
WT96/2014
MN296/2014
against
Ronan Sheehan T/A Sheehan Executive Coaches
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr P. Hurley
Members: Mr T. Gill
Mr D. McEvoy
heard this claim at Limerick on 20th July 2015
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: Michael B O'Donnell, Solicitor, Main Street, Rathkeale, Co. Limerick
Respondent: Ms. Elizabeth Enright, Lees, Solicitors, Lord Edward Street,
Kilmallock, Co Limerick
Summary of the Evidence
The claimant worked for the respondent’s late father from October 2005. The claimant says that he was constructively dismissed due to a decrease in his wages. He was a bus driver on a school run, mornings and evenings and had an exemplary work record. The season was September – June, five days a week averaging 15/20 hours. He was told that his wages were being reduced from €300 to €200 per week by way of a letter signed by the respondent and another. He replied to the letter saying that he refused the pay cut but would accept a redundancy package. No formal request (RP50) was given to employer and the claimant told the Tribunal that he got another job almost immediately at a similar rate of pay. He did not have any information, P60’s or evidence of current earnings to present to the Tribunal and stated that he never received holiday pay from the respondent.
The respondent RS told the Tribunal that his late father was the owner of the business, he (RS had no involvement in it whatsoever). When his father became ill he helped out and got to know the business, along with his uncle. Following the death of his father the business transferred to his late father’s estate, with his uncle and aunt being the executors. Accounts then showed that the business was in financial trouble and two of the buses were repossessed. All employees were written to, advising that the new rate for the school runs would be a flat rate of €200 nett for the 15/20 hours of work per week and asking if employees would confirm if they were happy to work for the new rate. The claimant replied, stating that he was not happy and under no circumstances would he work for the amount suggested, and seeking a redundancy package.
Determination:
In the circumstances the onus of proof rests on the claimant to show that he had no choice but to leave his employment. He must show the Tribunal that his failure to return to work was not voluntary and that the conduct of his employer was so unreasonable that he had no choice but take the course of action he did. The claimant was unable to provide any evidence of loss and the Tribunal does not believe that the claimant discharged the burden of proof in this case. The claims under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 and Minimum Notice Act and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005 fails.
The Tribunal award the claimant €800.00 being the equivalent to four week’s pay under the Organisation of Working Time Acts, 1997.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)