EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD892/2015
WT192/2015
CLAIM(S) OF:
Corinna Walsh
against
Noonan Services Group Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms B. Glynn
Members: Mr. D. Morrison
Mr T. Gill
heard this claim at Sligo on 6th October 2016
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: Mr. Ciaran Tansey, Damien Tansey Solicitors, Castle Chambers, 5-8 Castle Street, Sligo, Co. Sligo
Respondent: Mr John Barry, Management Support Services, The Courtyard, Hill Street, Dublin 1
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:
The claimant’s case was that she was dismissed from her position while the respondent’s case was that she was on a temporary lay - off and had not been dismissed.
Evidence was given that while the claimant was called to an investigative meeting re various matters, this investigation was later not continued. However, on the same day that the claimant received a letter from the respondent confirming the non -continuance of the investigation, she also received a letter informing her that she was being placed on temporary lay off from the 21st April. No discussion had taken place with her in relation to this matter prior to receiving this Notice.
Evidence given by the claimant was that from that date, she had never been contacted by her employer thereafter in relation to any work. This was not denied by the respondent but their representative sought to explain this on the basis that they had no suitable work for her.
The respondent produced only one witness who was the contract manager for whom the claimant carried out her work, but he was unable to assist the Tribunal in relation to the matter before them, in any way.
An employer is entitled to lay off his staff in circumstances where he is unable to provide work. However, an employer is only entitled to do this where there is reason for him to believe that the lay off will not be permanent and he has informed the staff member of this fact prior to giving him/ her notice of lay off. No evidence was given that this prior notice was given to the claimant but evidence was given that there was no suitable work for the claimant available. Indeed, evidence was given that three to four weeks after the claimant’s receipt of the Notice of lay off, she received an e-mail informing her that her locker had been cleared.
In the circumstances and based on the evidence given at the hearing, the Tribunal are satisfied that the “lay off” of the claimant amounted to a termination of her contract with them. However, it is also the opinion of the Tribunal and based on the evidence furnished, that the claimant contributed to her loss by not serving notice to claim redundancy pursuant to Section 12 of the Redundancy Act 1957, on her employer. Accordingly, and taking all matters into account, the Tribunal awards the claimant the sum of €7,000 , together with 6 ½ days holiday pay ,which latter payment was not disputed by the respondent.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)