EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Pavel Graf UD1000/2015
Against
Walsh Seamless Gutters Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms B. Glynn
Members: Mr. D. Morrison
Mr M. McGarry
heard this claim at Sligo on 1st December 2016 and 13th February 2017
and 14th February 2017
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: Mr Cormac McCarthy, Cormac McCarthy Solicitors, Swangate,
Athenry, Co. Galway
Respondent: William G Henry & Co Sols, Emmett St., Ballymoate, Co Sligo
Claimant’s case:
The claimant PG told the Tribunal that he began working for the respondent (a guttering firm) in November 2005 as a manual labourer. He had no problems with the company but had no terms and conditions of work just a verbal agreement. His sick leave was minimal and he worked five of six days a week, or overtime as required. He did not receive payslips and was paid by a combination of cheque and cash.
PG told the Tribunal that his problems began around June 2013 when he had to drive the company truck and that was not part of his arrangement or terms. He was fined for speeding and got penalty points. Evidence was given that the truck was faulty and the speedometer was not working correctly. He told his employer that he had no CPC licence to drive a truck and objected totally to driving but the respondent then did not give him any work so he felt he had no option but to continue do it.
Things remained unresolved and by September 2014 the claimant refused to drive the vehicle any longer. The respondent promised to find a driver, and while various people were employed they lasted no time in the position. Finally in March 2015 due to the claimant being on medication and having no CPC licence and in light of the unroadworthiness of the truck he refused to drive. The respondent told him it was none of his business and insisted he drove, in addition to informing him to go and get a CPC licence. When the claimant refused, he was sent home. PG said he was also seeking a contract of employment at the time, asking what his terms and conditions of employment were as he was never employed as a driver.
After six weeks of no work the claimant went to get advice from his solicitor who wrote to the respondent on 22nd April. The following day he received a text message asking where he was, why had he not attended work and stating that the employer was concerned about him. PG told the Tribunal that his employer had never text him in 10 years of employment and were not concerned for the six weeks prior to his solicitor’s letter when they had provided no work for him. He replied asking for terms and conditions of work or a P45, whichever suited the respondent.
On 1st May GW (owner) called to his home and asked that he sign a letter of resignation that had been drafted by the respondent. He also had a copy of a contract that was bore no resemblance to the work being carried out by PG. GW told PG that he would get paid what was owing to him and get his P45 once it had been signed (this payment would include an amount of €375 held as a deposit from when the claimant began his employment). He told the Tribunal that didn’t sign the letter of resignation and instead pursued his case for Unfair Dismissal.
Determination:
The Respondent decided not to go into evidence so the Tribunal has to base their decision on the evidence and documentation before them at the hearing and in reliance on same, the Tribunal is satisfied that the claimant must succeed in his claim as the Respondent has failed to show that the dismissal was fair. Taking all matters into account, the Tribunal awards the Claimant the sum of €13,000 as compensation under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1997 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________