EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD862/15
CLAIM OF:
Claire Doyle
– claimant
against
Pat The Baker
– respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. D. Mac Carthy S C
Members: Ms A. Gaule
Mr J. Maher
heard this claim at Dublin on 21st November 2016 and 6 February 2017.
Representation:
Claimant: Mr Conor Quinn, John J Quinn & Company, Solicitors, Earl Street, Longford
Respondent: Ms. Roisin Bradley, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Dismissal as a fact was in dispute.
Claimant’s Case:
The respondent is a bakery. The claimant worked for the respondent in the role of Receptionist/Accounts Administrator and commenced employment on 10th November 2008. She worked in the area of accounts receivable which included invoicing and statements and she also worked on Reception. She reported to RM. She was furnished with a contract of employment and employee handbook.
Her relationship with RM was sometimes turbulent. On one occasion when the claimant made a mistake RM called her up to her office. She was frustrated with the claimant. At that time the claimant intimated that perhaps she would look for work elsewhere and was told where the door was.
Employee J had recently left the company and his work was distributed among the staff. She together with RM were the only two employees working full time and the remaining staff worked part time. She had concerns about the increasing workload that she was being asked to handle and emailed RM in this regard on 28th April 2015.
At a meeting the claimant attended with other staff members two days later in relation to the workload situation, RM indicated that the company was seeking a replacement for J and suggested that staff working part time might consider working full time for the short term until a replacement was sourced for J. The claimant felt this suggestion was putting pressure on the part time staff and that it was a complete attack on her.
The atmosphere in work became a bit tense in the following weeks.
The claimant had a miscarriage in late November 2014 and she had a brother with special needs. She was interested in training in the special needs area. In this regard she registered for a course in special needs and completed a seven week Special Needs Assistant course in February 2015. As part of that course she had to get work experience and she took a week off work to gain this experience. She also took the period 18th to 21st May 2015 off work. She had been thinking of a new career path. She put feeders out.
At 9.30 on the morning of 22nd May 2015 she spoke to RM. She wanted to let her know that she was looking for work elsewhere but had no immediate plans as yet. At 11 am RM asked her to put that in writing. She subsequently emailed RM. She had been asked on three occasions to put it in writing and to change the wording twice. The claimant said that she might be finishing up at the end of June but that she could work the month of August if it suited the company. She sent an email and headed it ‘letter of notice’. RM wanted the claimant to be more specific about an exact date. The claimant again said that she was not leaving but would let RM know when she knew. She wanted to give them as much notice as possible.
At 3.30 that day she met RM and the Financial Controller (D) in the Boardroom. The Financial Controller said he accepted her resignation with immediate effect. She was dumb founded and shocked and shook hands with him. D walked down to reception with her and she collected her coat and he escorted her out of the building like a criminal. She subsequently received her P45.
The claimant had never resigned. She was pressurised into writing a letter.
Two days later (Sunday evening) she received a call from a local school enquiring if she could work there the next day. Her name had been left on file having completed her work experience there.
She had secured occasional work from 22nd May 2015 and secured full time employment on 25th August 2016.
Respondent’s Case
The accounts payable manager, RM, gave evidence. The business is a family owned bakery that employs approximately 450 people. The claimant reported to her and was one of the best members of the team. The claimant worked as a receptionist and accounts assistant. She set up accounts, did pricing and helped a sales manager with accounts. The reception area was generally quiet as not many people came but there were lots of phone calls.
RM was shocked when the claimant described their relationship as turbulent. There had been an incident some time ago when she had spoken sharply to the claimant when the office was under pressure but she had apologised and since that time they had a good relationship.
The claimant was concerned about her work load so RM met with her on 1 May 2015 to see what could be done to alleviate the amount of work she had. They were trying to hire someone and in fact two new employees were taken on, one in May and the second in June.
On Sunday 17 May 2015 the claimant sent a text message to RM saying that she needed the week off for family reasons. On Monday morning the claimant phoned her and said she needed the week off but did not say why. RM thought that perhaps the claimant’s dad was ill.
It later transpired that that she had been doing a SNA course and was working in a primary school to fulfil the course requirements. However the school was closed on the Friday because of a referendum and the claimant returned to work.
When RM spoke to the claimant on that Friday, the claimant said that she was thinking about leaving. She had had a bad year and wanted to spend more time with her sons. RM said in response that she was happy for her and hugged her.
RM then spoke to the financial controller. She could not recall her exact words but she told him the claimant was giving her notice. RM then asked the claimant for written details of her intentions. The claimant said she was not available to work in July but would be available in August. The first two letters drafted by the claimant were not acceptable to the financial controller so she was asked for more details. Her third letter of 22 May 2015 headed Letter of Notice was acceptable to the financial controller.
The financial controller called the claimant to the conference room together with RM and he told the claimant that he accepted her resignation and that she would be paid in lieu of notice and that she could leave then and there. The claimant was not upset and did not attempt to retract her notice. The claimant left the conference room with the financial controller.
The financial controller gave evidence. He recruited the claimant, she came from another family run business so he knew she would fit in. She did not report to him but he often spoke to her. The claimant’s relationship with RM was under pressure in 2008 when the company put in an integrated control system. There were a number of issues when the system went live. At one point they could not invoice suppliers and as a result there was a lot of pressure.
The claimant did not speak to the financial controller about issues with RM.
He knew the claimant was not at work the week beginning 18 May 2015 because RM told him when they were discussing that week’s work issues and priorities. He had intended to pay her that week. The respondent does not usually pay sick leave.
On the Friday morning RM said that the claimant was leaving at the end of May and that she had done a SNA course. He asked for a letter of resignation rather than an email because he wanted an exact date and her signature on it.
The claimant’s contract of employment allowed either working or payment in lieu of notice. He felt that it was of benefit to the claimant to be paid her notice. He did not ask her to reconsider because it was pretty clear to him for valid reasons.
The financial controller went downstairs with the claimant after their meeting as a courtesy. He was not escorting her off the premises. She wanted to take some pictures off her computer but he told her the IT tech would look after that. There was no business security reason that prevented the claimant working her notice.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced and the documents submitted in this case. The claimant worked for a number of years in a number of roles for the respondent, in a satisfactory manner. A series of unfortunate family events led the claimant to decide to train and then work as a SNA and thus make a contribution to society and suit her family circumstances. She decided to leave the respondent’s employment.
In May 2015 the claimant took a week off work saying it was for family reasons but in fact, spent it in a school. She returned to work on the Friday when the school closed due to a referendum. She sent an email to RM starting the process of resignation even though it may not have been done properly. It is clear she was beginning the process. The financial controller asked for a terminal date and a signature.
RM brought the claimant to the board room. The Tribunal do not accept that the financial controller forced or even encouraged her to resign. The Tribunal also do not accept that she was marched out of the building in the manner she described, although she may have felt it was that way. The claimant was shocked, having come to work that day, to suddenly find herself outside the door even though she intended to leave. The Tribunal is satisfied that she intended to resign and did so.
When an employee gives notice and the employer says leave now, that is technically a dismissal, as the employer is thereby bringing the employment to an end earlier than the employee intended. The Tribunal notes that the employment contract did allow the employer to pay in lieu of notice, but despite that provision the fact remains that the employer brought the employment to an end instantly rather than at the end of the notice period.
In practical terms, of course, the claimant suffered no financial loss. Under the Act, as amended, the Tribunal is allowed to make a nominal award of up to four weeks’ pay, and we award the claimant compensation in the sum of €1972.00.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)