EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Teresa Heneghan – claimant UD900/2014
Against
Boyne Hill House Equestrian And Heritage Centre Limited – respondent
Under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. McGrath B.L.
Members: Mr F. Moloney
Mr S. Mackell
heard this claim at Dublin on 25th August 2015
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s): Mr Jadel Naidoo BL instructed by:
Mr Stephen Noonan
Stephen T Noonan, Solicitors, 37 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2
Respondent(s): No appearance or representation
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The members of the Tribunal have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of the hearing.
There was no appearance made by the respondent company and the Tribunal secretary at the direction of the Tribunal, contacted the respondent company office where it was confirmed that notice had been received but no one would be attending the Tribunal on today’s date.
The claimant gave evidence and, in the absence of the respondent, this evidence is largely uncontroverted though the Tribunal did raise its own queries and clarifications.
The Tribunal acknowledges that this case is unusual insofar as the matters giving rise to an alleged unfair dismissal have to be seen against the backdrop of a 35-year personal relationship between the claimant and the Managing Director (WG). The claimant and her then partner Mr WG started up the respondent company in and around 2007. The company’s primary function appeared to be for the hosting of weddings at a location near Navan, Co Meath. Both the claimant and WG were co-directors and a Ms CK was the General Manager (coming as she did from a hospitality background).
The claimant gave evidence that right from the start she was considerably more than a nominal director and that under the guidance of CK she learned all she needed to know about hosting weddings and that the business was developing very nicely in the year following its set –up.
At a point unknown but prior to January 2012 an independent inspection of the company’s procedures meant that the claimant’s status was changed and she was for all intents and purposes put on the books of the company as an employee. The Tribunal has had difficulty reconciling the claimant as an employee of the company with her ongoing status of director (whether nominal or otherwise).
On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied to proceed on the basis that it was intended by the parties from the first of January 2012 that the claimant would be seen as an employee of the company being paid a salary of circa €440.00 per week.
It is noted that this status was acknowledged in all the relevant correspondence between the parties and in the appeal hearing which was conducted at a later date.
As the personal relationship between the claimant and Mr WG deteriorated things changed for the claimant in the workplace. In particular Mr WG unilaterally appointed his own son Mr FG as the General Manager from in and around November of 2013. The Tribunal noted that the claimant made it clear she did not intend resigning her salaried position at this time.
The claimant continued as before to work remotely from the wedding venue as had always been her practice, but this soon became impossible as her access to email and banking was cut off at source.
There then followed a series of correspondence between Mr FG and the claimant which ended up with the claimant being dismissed for gross misconduct. The Tribunal cannot accept any wilful act of gross misconduct took place such that would allow the General Manager dismiss the claimant in the manner that he did. The GM himself removed the claimant’s wherewithal to carry out her duties and functions from home and then demanded the claimant’s presence at a venue which he knew or ought to have known would cause the claimant considerable worry and concern. The GM’s ultimatum was wholly unreasonable, unfair and unprofessional.
The findings on appeal are not intended to be relied upon and in the circumstances the Tribunal cannot look to this process as having remedied the wrong visited upon the claimant.
The claimant’s dismissal is deemed unfair in all the circumstance and the Tribunal awards the claimant €12,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)