EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Michelle Ryan UD131/2015, RP54/2015
MN79/2015
Against
Dundalk ICTU Centre Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr R. Maguire B.L.
Members: Mr F. Moloney
Ms M. Maher
heard this claim at Dublin on 8th March 2016
Representation:
Claimant : Mr Aaron Shearer B L instructed by
Ahern & McDonnell, Solicitors, Roden Place, Dundalk, Co Louth
Respondent : No representation listed
The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent was properly notified of this hearing. Neither the respondent nor a representative on its behalf appeared for the hearing.
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
Respondent’s Case
No evidence adduced
Claimant’s Case
The claimant commenced employment with this early years child centre in autumn 2008 and held the title of pre-school room supervisor when her employment ceased in the summer of 2014. In January 2014 the respondent presented her with written terms and conditions of her employment. The claimant told the Tribunal she objected to some aspects of that document and was unhappy with her employer’s response to those objections. In May of that year she was placed on a four day week thus reducing her working time and remuneration.
In a letter dated 06 August 2014 the chairperson of the board of management of this crèche stated that considered that she had resigned her employment. According to that letter the reasoning behind that consideration was that her recent absence from the crèche amount to unauthorised absence. The claimant’s notification of her previous day’s absence was disregarded as it was only sent by text message which was not in compliance with the respondent’s sick policy.
Within a week of that letter the manager of the respondent notified the parents and guardians of the enrolled children that the centre was closing by the end of August 2014. The respondent subsequently made the jobs of the remaining employees redundant.
Determination
Having heard and considered the uncontested evidence of the claimant the Tribunal does not accept she resigned her employment. Furthermore, no evidence was presented that she was dismissed. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the claimant continued to be an employee of the respondent up to the time the centre closed. It follows, therefore, that her position with the respondent was made redundant thus entitling her to a statutory redundancy payment based on her service. The appeal under the Redundancy Payment Acts, 1967 to 2007 succeeds and the claimant is awarded a statutory lump sum under those Acts, and based on the following;
Date of Commencement: 15 October 2008
Date of Termination: 26 September 2014
Gross Weekly Wage €540.00
This award is made subject to the claimant being in insurable employment during the relevant period.
Since a redundancy is a fair dismissal it follows that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1997 to 2007 must fall.
The appeal under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 and 2005 is allowed and the appellant is awarded €2,160.00 as compensation under those Acts, that amount being the equivalent of four weeks’ remuneration. .
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)