EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD1672/2014
MN828/2014
CLAIM OF:
Barbara Tarczynska
against
Shannonview Retail Limited
Under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
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 13th May 2016
Representation:
Claimant:
Mr Cathal Minihane, Clohessy Minihane Solicitors, 24 Barrington Street, Limerick
Respondent:
Mr. David Gaffney, Gaffney Solicitors, 4b Father Matthew Street, Cork
Background:
At the outset the claimant withdrew her claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005 but proceeded with her claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
The claimant had worked for the respondent for less than a year but claimed that she was dismissed due to her being pregnant. Therefore the Tribunal accepted jurisdiction to hear this claim.
The respondent currently owns one grocery store and deli, having previously owned three. The claimant had worked from 6th September 2013 in one of the stores previously owned by the respondent but had transferred to the new owner of that store under a transfer of undertakings later in 2013.
On 26th June 2014 she recommenced employment with the respondent on a six month contract in his one remaining store but her employment terminated on 27th July 2014.
Respondent’s case:
The owner of the respondent (GB) told the Tribunal that the claimant called to his store in June 2014 and he offered her a job there as she had previously worked for his elsewhere. The claimant accepted this offer and commenced employment with the respondent on 26th June 2014. However it quickly became apparent to the respondent that the claimant was not “pulling her weight” and he spoke to her on a number of occasions about this.
The supervisor of the store (AP) also told the Tribunal that she had spoken to the claimant about her poor appearance (her uniform did not look fresh) and her unsatisfactory work performance. AP had discussed these issues with GB. AP also told the Tribunal that other employees had taken maternity leave while working for the respondent and that her friend, who also works there, is currently on maternity leave.
Having previously warned the claimant about her unsatisfactory performance GB decided to dismiss the claimant. GB presented his diary to the Tribunal for inspection in respect of entries he made there regarding these discussions. A meeting was arranged for 19th July 2014 and GB told the claimant that he was letting her go. GB had already prepared a letter of dismissal and handed this to the claimant at the start of this meeting. The claimant responded to this by telling GB that there was no need as she was leaving anyway. However she also went on to tell GB that she now knew why she was feeling tired as she had just found out that she was pregnant. On hearing this GB asked her to consider staying on and perhaps working 2 days per week but the claimant refused this offer on the basis that she would be fine on Social Welfare.
GB denied that he had let the claimant go because she was pregnant and told the Tribunal that other employees had taken maternity leave and he had no problem with that.
Claimant’s case:
The claimant denied that GB had ever warned her about unsatisfactory performance. She did confirm that the supervisor had discussed her performance and that she had told the supervisor that she was feeling tired but denied telling her that she was unhappy with the job.
Initially the claimant said that she met with GB on 20th July 2014 but then agreed that this meeting actually took place on 19th July 2014. The claimant denied that she had been given the letter of dismissal on 19th July 2014 or that she ever received this letter and pointed out that the wrong house number was written in the address on this letter.
The claimant told the Tribunal that when she met GB on 19th July 2014 and told him she was pregnant he told her he would have to let her go. She denied that GB offered her an opportunity to continue on a two day week or that she told him she would be better off on Social Welfare.
It was the claimant’s position that she wanted to continue working for the respondent but was dismissed because she was pregnant.
Determination:
Having carefully considered the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal finds that the claimant did not credibly make out a case that she was dismissed by reason of being pregnant.
Therefore this claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)