EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Kim Clarke RP682/2014
- Claimant UD1214/2014
MN618/2014
against
Abdus Salan Babul / Abdul Mumith, The Sandwich Shop
- First Named Respondent
Eva Clarke
- Second Named Respondent
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 P. Hurley
Members: Ms M. Sweeney
Mr F. Dorgan
heard this claim at Limerick on 16th November 2015
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Richard R. O'Hanrahan, Solicitors, Limerick Law Chambers, 22 High Street, Limerick
Respondent(s) : An Accountant – First Named Respondent
Stephen Kehoe, Keating Connolly Sellors, Solicitors, 6/7 Glenworth Street,
Limerick – Second Named Respondent
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Preliminary Issue:
A preliminary issue was raised by the representative for the second named respondent in this matter regarding the correct employer of the claimant. The second named respondent (EC) gave sworn evidence in this regard.
EC commenced business in 2007 and employed the claimant and other staff in the coffee shop. In 2013 EC informed the staff she was selling the business on and they would transfer to the new employer (first named respondent – ASB). The sale completed on the 20th November 2013 and EC had no more dealings in the business.
The deeds of sale and agreement of assets was submitted to the Tribunal for their perusal.
The Tribunal determined the first named respondent was the correct employer and EC, the second named respondent, was discharged from these proceedings.
The first named respondent (ASB) was not present on the day of the hearing. However, his brother (AM) and their Accountant attended. AM gave sworn evidence in this matter.
Substantive Issue:
The claimant was employed as a Manager in the respondent’s coffee shop working a 25 ½ hour week. A new contract of employment was issued to all employees in the shop by ASB. The claimant signed her contract on the 6th February 2014. On the 16th February 2014 the claimant’s rostered hours were reduced to 11 hours. She queried the reduction in hours.
On the 19th February 2014 the claimant met AM in the coffee shop. The claimant was advised her hours would need to be reduced and was given a letter to sign. She refused to sign it and asked to take it with her to get advice. AM signed the letter and gave it to the claimant. AM tried to retrieve the letter, but the claimant kept it and left. Two days later the claimant received a text to hand back her keys of the shop.
The claimant never worked for the respondent again.
Respondent’s Position:
AM gave evidence. He stated that his brother (ASB) was the employer but could not be present on the day of the hearing due to an illness. However he did help out with the running of the business.
When put to him he said he had sent the various texts to the claimant which were submitted to the Tribunal to read. He said on the day in question, the 19th February 2014 he had met the claimant. He said that he had asked the claimant to sign a letter regarding her employment. She refused to sign it, grabbed it from his hand and left. He told the Tribunal that he found it most disrespectful. He agreed he asked her to return the keys of the shop.
Claimant’s Position:
The claimant stated the person (AM) who gave sworn evidence on behalf of the respondent was her employer and the person she dealt with in this matter. He had asked her to get the staff to sign their new contracts on the 6th February 2014 and informed her he would be compiling the staff rosters from then on. Previously this had been part of her vast duties as Manager.
When she realised her hours were to be reduced she tried to contact her employer. She requested a copy of her contract. On the 19th February 2014 she met AM in the shop. He gave her a copy of her contract and a letter stating it was necessary to put her on short time. He asked her to sign it, she declined but asked to keep it to bring to her solicitor for advice. AM tried to grab the letter from her hand, she put it in her bag. AM tried to grab it. He told the staff present not to let her in the shop again. She left. Some 15/20 minutes later AM rang her and said he wanted the letter and did not want her back in the shop again. Two days later she received a text to hand in her keys for the premises.
The claimant told the Tribunal that she believed she had been dismissed from her employment without prior notice.
She gave evidence of loss.
Determination:
The Tribunal have carefully considered the evidence adduced in this matter. The Tribunal finds the manner in which the claimant was dismissed in this case was unfair in all the circumstances. Accordingly, the Tribunal awards the sum of €2,900.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 against the first named respondent.
Loss having been established the Tribunal awards the sum of €1,428.00, this being four weeks gross wages, under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.
The claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 was dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)