EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD649/2014
CLAIM(S) OF:
Tamie Namba-Okello - claimant
Against
Heatons - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. McGrath B.L.
Members: Mr P. Pierce
Mr. J. Dorney
heard this claim at Dublin on 8th July 2015
Representation:
Claimant(s) : In person
Respondent(s) : Mr Tiernan Doherty, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2
Determination
The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing. The claimant had been employed with the respondent retail company for some six years prior to the termination of her employment.
On foot of an investigation and disciplinary process entered into in and around September 2013, the claimant was summarily dismissed due to gross misconduct on the 19 September 2013.
The Tribunal accepts that the claimant knew or ought to have known the significance of the wording “gross misconduct” and “summary dismissal”. The respondent’s disciplinary rules and procedures clearly states that a summary dismissal is without notice or payment in lieu of notice. In fact the letter of dismissal itself clearly states that “...as your employment is summarily dismissed you are not entitled to notice or payment in lieu of notice”.
On balance therefore the Tribunal must find that the date of termination of employment was the date of the letter of termination being the 19 September 2013 which implies that the claimant had up to and including the 18 March 2014 to give a notice in writing to the Tribunal for the purpose of initiating a claim under the unfair dismissals legislation.
The claimant’s workplace relations complaint form is dated 8 April 2014 some three weeks after the six month time limit allowed.
The Tribunal is entitled to extend the time limit for a further six months if the claimant can demonstrate that exceptional circumstances prevented her from filing the required notice in the six month period immediately after the dismissal.
The Tribunal heard evidence to the effect that the claimant struggled with depression type symptoms in the aftermath of her dismissal and was in ongoing consultation with her G.P. and attending supportive counselling in this regard.
The claimant also gave evidence to the effect that she was looking for gainful employment at this time and would have liked to get back to work as quickly as possible as she had been the primary earner in her household.
On balance the Tribunal must find that the claimant has not shown exceptional circumstances prevented her from initiating a claim or from making enquiries about the fairness of her dismissal or otherwise. The claimant formed no intention to redress the situation within six months of her dismissal and it was only in the course of a chance conversation with a social welfare officer that the idea germinated in her mind and by then the six month period had expired.
The Tribunal refuses to extend the time limit pursuant to Section 7 (2) of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993 read in conjunction with Section 8 (2) of the principle Act.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)