EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
John Higgins MN11/15
- Claimant
Against
Board of Management, Scoil An Linbh Iosa
- Respondent
under
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. T. Ryan
Members: Mr E. Handley
Mr F. Keoghan
heard this claim at Dublin on 22nd January 2016.
Representation:
Claimant: Mr. Michael McNamee BL, instructed by Mr Eric Boland, Patrick V. Boland & Son, Solicitors, Main Street, Newbridge, Co Kildare
Respondent: Mr Liam Riordan, Mason Hayes & Curran, Solicitors, South
Bank House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of evidence:
The claimant was employed as a Caretaker by the respondent (a school) and commenced employment in late 1993. He had never signed a contract of employment during his tenure.
Several months prior to his 65th birthday the respondent advised him that he was due to retire on 25th November 2013.
In the absence of a signed contract of employment the claimant believed that there was no requirement for him to retire on his 65th birthday. He wanted to remain working for the respondent until his 68th birthday. He sought advice from his union representative. A precedent had been set in the school whereby an employee was permitted to work until she attained her 68th birthday.
The claimant’s union representative negotiated an extension to his retirement for a further year with the Board of Management. It was the claimant’s understanding at that time that he would apply for an extension of his retirement on an annual basis thereafter.
On 10th June 2014 the claimant received a letter from the respondent indicating that his contract would not be extended beyond his 66th Birthday which was 25th November 2014.
He went to work on 25th November 2014 but was let go that day. He was very upset and he felt he was being bullied and he did not like the Board of Management’s attitude towards him.
During his tenure he had worked outside school hours and on Sundays without being paid.
The Principal of the School (MN) commenced in her role in 2006. She was advised to refresh existing contracts of employment and the claimant was furnished with a new contract of employment. The existing contract was shredded. The claimant signed the new contract of employment which was retained by the school. Following a burglary in the school the contract of employment was mislaid.
Following negotiations between the Board of Management and the claimant in late 2013 a new contract of employment was drawn up and a copy sent to the union’s representative. MN tried to contact the union representative on a number of occasions in relation to securing a signed copy of the contract of employment but was unsuccessful. It was the Board’s understanding that following a one year extension a contract would be signed.
NC Chairman of the Board of Management wrote to the claimant’s representative on 27 February 2014 to bring the matter to a close. The Board wanted a signed contract of employment. None was forthcoming.
The claimant’s representative requested the claimant be allowed to continue in his role as caretaker after his 66th Birthday. By letter dated 7th May 2014 NC wrote to the claimant’s representative indicating that the Board were not prepared to concede to this request. The Board heard nothing further from the claimant’s representative and by letter dated 10th June 2014 wrote to the claimant and clarified the Board’s decision not to extend his employment beyond 25th November 2014.
Determination:
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced during the course of this hearing.
The claimant was due to retire on 25th November 2013 on his 65th birthday and sought an extension to his retirement for a further year. The Board of Management acceded to this request and drew up a new contract of employment. Despite numerous requests to obtain a signed copy of the contract none was forthcoming. As there was no communication from the claimant’s union representative after 7th May 2014 the respondent wrote to the claimant on 10th June 2014 and clarified the Board’s decision not to extend the claimant’s contract of employment.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant received adequate notice on 10th June 2014 of the Board’s decision not to extend his contract of employment beyond the 25th November 2014.
The Tribunal dismisses the claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)