EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Liam Ellis UD1631/2014
against
Fountainworks Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr P. O'Leary B L
Members: Mr F. Cunneen
Mr D. Thomas
heard this claim at Dublin on the 23rd February 2016
Representation:
Claimant: In person
Respondent : Mr Robert Tallent, The Synergy Group, Synergy House,
10 Oakview Drive, Clonsilla, Dublin 15
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
Claimant’s Case
Prior to commencing part time employment in November 2012 with the respondent as a hardware and software computer developer the claimant had a previous working and personal relationship with the owner of this enterprise. While the company was located in Navan, Co Meath the claimant worked from his residence and communicated with that owner mainly by electronic means. Up to the summer of 2014 the claimant had “no issues” with his employer.
Around that time he sought an increase in his remuneration. He indicated to the owner that unless such an increase was forthcoming he might have to seek another job.
A further issue arose between these two gentlemen over the management of certain invoices and payments relating to their earlier working relationship.
Upon returning from a week’s leave in September 2014 the claimant’s telephone attempts to contact the owner drew a blank. In turn, he was not aware that the owner called to his residence twice that week but also failed to contact him. However, they eventually met in the claimant’s residence on 30 September and addressed various work issues. By that time the claimant had not received his holiday pay and at least one week’s wages was still outstanding.
Due to those monetary issues the verbal exchanges between the claimant and the owner became heated and concluded with the claimant telling the owner to vacate his residence. He told the Tribunal while he was angry and wound up at that meeting he did not tell the owner to shove his job. On the contrary he formed the impression that the respondent wanted to get rid of him.
In response to a letter from the owner accepting his resignation the claimant emailed him clearly stating that he had not resigned. Subsequent correspondence included the issuing of a P45 to the claimant citing his cessation of employment as 2 October 2014.
Respondent’s Case
The owner of the respondent described the claimant as a former valued friend and employee. It was within that context that he allowed certain work practices to develop and took responsibility for those practices. By the summer of 2014 he had become increasingly displeased with the claimant’s input. He found the claimant’s demand for a pay increase offensive and his refusal to work on the company premises as annoying. There was also an ongoing difference between them over historical financial matters.
The owner was not impressed that the claimant was not visible at his work place when he called twice to meet him in September. When they met on 30 September their encounter went from a reasonable cordial exchange to an aggressive unpleasant experience when the topic of money was raised. Before ordering him out of the house the claimant told him in no uncertain terms what to do with his job. Upon reflection and having taken “soundings” the owner then wrote o the claimant accepting his decision to resign.
Determination
Based on the adduced evidence and submitted documents the Tribunal prefers the respondent’s version of events that led to the claimant’s cessation of employment. The claimant’s anger and frustration at the way he perceived he was being treated by his employer overweighed his likely intention to remain an employee.
The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)