EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD489/2014
MN209/2014
WT77/2014
CLAIM OF:
Michael McGrath
against
Pat & Tommy McWeeney T/A McWeeney 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: Ms M. McAveety
Members: Mr M. Carr
Ms H. Henry
heard this claim at Longford on 1st April 2015 and 2nd June 2015
Representation:
Claimant:
Ms Joan Devine, Joan H Devine & Co, Solicitors, Bridge Street, Strokestown, Co Roscommon
Respondent:
Mr. John McNulty, Kevin P Kilrane & Co, Solicitors, Mohill, Co. Leitrim
Claimant’s case:
Dismissal was in dispute and therefore the claimant went into evidence first.
The respondent operates a bus company and the claimant was employed as a bus driver from 13th October 2008 to 6th January 2014. The claimant had been covering a particular school run for some time and had been dropping a child at the same spot each day since September 2013. However in or around November 2013 there was an incident which could have led to an accident at this drop off and the claimant decided not to drop there from then on as in his view it was unsafe to do so. However on 6th January 2014 he was informed by the owner (PMc) to recommence dropping the child at the same spot. The claimant refused to do this and as a result PMc called to his house that morning and took the bus away.
The claimant was not offered any alternative route and regarded himself as having been dismissed by the respondent.
Respondent’s case:
It was the respondent’s position that the stop in question was a safe place to drop off and that it had been designated as a stop by Bus Eireann (the contract was with Bus Eireann). However the respondent did not confirm this fact to the claimant.
The respondent did not have a grievance procedure through which the claimant could have raised a grievance. PMc confirmed that he had taken the bus from outside the claimant’s house after he had refused to agree to dropping at the stop in question but told the Tribunal that he had to do so in order that he could have the route covered by someone else that afternoon.
PMc did not offer the claimant alternative employment and told the Tribunal that he could have done something but did not.
It was the respondent’s position that the claimant had left of his own volition.
Determination:
Having carefully considered the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
There was an issue between the parties as to whether a drop area on the claimant’s route was a safe and designated stop. The claimant clearly had a grievance in relation to being told to drop a child at this stop. However there was no grievance procedure in place within the company and it was the owner’s evidence that he could have done something to try and resolve the impasse having taken the bus from the claimant.
The claimant gained alternative employment at the same rate of pay seven weeks after his employment ended with the respondent and in all the circumstances the Tribunal awards the claimant €2,100.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
The Tribunal also awards the claimant €1,200.00 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.
It is noted that the claim under the Organisation of working Time Act, 1997 was withdrawn by the claimant.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)