EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Frances Devoy UD1257/2014
-Claimant
against
Athy Community Childcare Limited T/A Footsteps
-Respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. R. Maguire, B.L.
Members: Mr. B. Kealy
Mr. J. Maher
heard this claim at Dublin on 4th February 2016
Representation:
Claimant: Ms Sarah Lea BL instructed by Mr. Conor Connelly solr.
Hussey Fraser, Solicitors, 17 Northumberland Road, Dublin 4
Respondent: No appearance or representation
Background:
There was no appearance or representation for or on behalf of the Respondent. The Tribunal is satisfied that proper notification was sent to the Respondent. There were individuals present who explained to the Tribunal that they were directors, although one of these explained that she had resigned as a director. They also explained that they were voluntary directors of a community crèche and that “Pobal” helped to set up the company, and that “it is a community company started off by (others) years ago”. The individuals confirmed that they had no instructions on behalf of the company.
Claimant’s case:
The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant. She was employed as a child carer and has a FETAC level 6 qualification in that area. She was asked if she wished to take up a managerial position and she did so in January 2013.
Her main duties were in administration in the office. She took the subscriptions/ monies from the parents. Later on in 2013 a Ms H took over the money duties. She noticed discrepancies in that regard. Sometime after this she was moved and she encountered difficulties in her workplace.
At a later time she was told that the work was lessening and then sometime later she was offered a redundancy package which she declined. She was told that if she declined redundancy she would have to re-apply for her job.
The Claimant explained that there was no consultation regarding redundancies and that there was not any job skills assessments. The Claimant explained that one of the junior staff replaced her. The Claimant also explained that she would have accepted less hours as an alternative because of her financial situation.
Determination:
The Tribunal determines that the named Respondent is the proper Respondent and that the other individuals who were put on notice are not Respondents.
Having heard the Claimant’s evidence the Tribunal determines that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, succeeds. The Tribunal determine that compensation is the most appropriate remedy in this case and having heard the Claimant’s evidence as to mitigation of loss the Tribunal awards the Claimant the sum of €20,000.00, as compensation under the Act.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)