EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Pawel Filar UD614/2015
- claimant
against
James Monaghan T/A Prospect Farm Puckane
- respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. Clancy
Members: Mr T. Gill
Ms H. Henry
heard this claim at Ennis on 7th September 2016
Representation:
Claimant(s) : In person
Respondent(s) : Mr Alastair Purdy, Purdy Fitzgerald Solicitors, Block 1, GFSC, Moneenageisha Rd, Galway
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The claimant gave evidence that he worked as a farmhand for the respondent for over 5 years. In May 2015, while on holiday, he contacted the respondent to extend the holiday due to an issue with his passport taking longer to resolve than he had anticipated. On his return to work he went to meet the respondent who gave him a list of documents he needed to produce. The documents included passport details, flight boarding pass and the date of reservation. The respondent said he had no work for him. The claimant didn’t understand why he had to produce documentation when the respondent had not presented him with a contract or any documentation in five years. On 18th of May the claimant wrote a letter to the respondent requesting to return to work immediately, a weekly payslip, P60 for the previous year and holiday pay. On cross examination the claimant accepted that two letters sent by the respondent had indicated the respondent’s willingness to take him back if documents were produced. He felt badly treated and betrayed and believed his relationship with respondent had ended the day he had returned to work and the respondent had “closed the door in my face”. He also gave evidence of having legitimate reasons for his late return from holidays on two previous occasions.
The Respondent gave evidence of being a livestock farmer. The claimant had requested one weeks holiday in May 2015. It was a particularly busy time for the farm but the respondent reluctantly agreed. The claimant told the respondent he’d be back in work on the 13th of May, which was the date the respondent had arranged a herd test with the Department of Agriculture. When the claimant contacted to say he wouldn’t be back on agreed date the respondent was annoyed as there had been previous cases of the claimant returning late from holidays and also the claimant was aware of the pre-arranged herd test. On his return to work the claimant met with the respondent in the farmyard. The respondent asked the claimant his reasons for not returning on the agreed date. When he wasn’t satisfied with the answers he said he wanted the claimant to produce documents to establish the true facts of what had occurred. The respondent was expecting the claimant to return with the necessary documents “in a few hours” and then he could go back to work. After receiving claimant’s letter dated 18th of May, he replied stating his reasons for wanting the claimant to produce the specified documentation as it wasn’t the first time he was “misled” by the claimant’s late return from holidays. The letter also stated that if they weren’t produced within ten working days then the claimant could face disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. The respondent never stated the claimant was fired as he believed it was too busy a time on the farm and the claimant was needed to do the driving. After receiving notice of the WRC complaint, the respondent again wrote to the claimant offering to keep the claimant’s position open if he sent the documentation within ten working days.
Determination
After hearing all the evidence adduced and after examining written submissions, The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent did in fact keep the claimant’s job open and the latter was not dismissed from his employment. Therefore the claim under the Unfair Dismissals acts 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)