UD834/2015

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:                                                                                                           CASE NO.

Michael Peoples - Claimant                                                                                  UD834/2015

Against

• • Hertel (Ireland) Limited - Respondent

• 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 Castlebar on 17th November 2016

                                                 and 9th February 2017         
•                                                and 10th April 2017               
•                                                and 12th April 2017
• Representation:
• Claimant:        Mr. Gary Mulchrone, Gilvarry & Associates Solicitors, Unit 9, N5 Business Park,  
•                        Moneen Road, Castlebar, Co. Mayo
• Respondent:    Ms Caoimhe Heery, Ronan Daly Jermyn, Solicitors, Aengus House, Dock Street, Galway
•                         Moneen Road, Castlebar, Co. Mayo
•  
• The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
• (Note: All documentation referred to in this order was opened fully to the Tribunal during the course of this hearing and read into the Tribunal record)

• Preliminary Issue:
• A preliminary issue was raised by the representative for the respondent in respect of the six month time limit in which to lodge a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.The respondent stated the claimant was employed on a fixed term contract from the 8th of April 2013 until his contract expired on the 23rd of January 2015. The claim for unfair dismissal was lodged with the Workplace Relations Customer Service on the 27th of July 2015. Some six months and four days after his date of termination and therefore out of time.
• The claimant’s representative stated the claimant was not employed under a fixed term contract but had a contract of definite duration and entitled to one’s weeks’ minimum notice and therefore his date of termination would be the 30th of January 2015 bringing him within the six month time limit to lodge a claim for unfair dismissal.

•  
•  

  Note: Two contracts of employment and various letters and the claimant’s P45 and wage slip were opened to the Tribunal.

     

  Preliminary Determination: 

  The Tribunal have carefully considered the submissions adduced by both representatives. 

  The Tribunal finds the claimant’s first contract of employment was of indefinite duration and the second contract of employment superseded that. However, the second contract had two commencement dates – the 8th of April 2013 and the 17th of November 2014 but had no termination date. 

  In the second contract of employment it quotes: “In the event of the termination of your employment, one week’s notice in writing applies, or such longer period as may apply, in accordance with the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973-1991.” A letter to the claimant dated the 22nd of January 2015 also states: “You are not required to work your notice for which you will be paid in full.” 

  The Tribunal finds the claimant is entitled to this one weeks’ minimum notice and therefore his date of termination would be the 30th of January 2015 bringing him within the six month time limit to lodge a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007. 

  Substantive Issue: 

  Respondent’s Case: 

  DH, the Senior Human Resources Manager, gave evidence. The claimant was employed as an Advanced Scaffolder with the respondent company. He worked on contract to the respondent’s client on a location on the Atlantic coast in County Mayo. This site, due to its location, was susceptible to adverse weather conditions. 

  In 2014 the respondent’s client advised the respondent that there was a downturn in work available. The respondent’s Senior Site Manager (EB) advised all the staff concerned. 

  On the 29th of October 2014 EB emailed DH a list of personnel required by the client going forward. EB asked DH to score a matrix for the required personnel and relay this information back to him. This matrix was then compiled and agreed with the employees’ union. EB again met with all the staff involved. 

  On the 4th of November 2014 the claimant was informed by EB that his position was to be made redundant with effect from the 11th of November 2014 as there was no alternative work available for him. Ten other personnel were also informed of their impending redundancies. 

  Soon after the client informed the respondent there was more work available. The respondent contacted the claimant to offer him a temporary contract for a period of five weeks. The claimant accepted the work and the conditions. 

  On the 17th of November 2014 the claimant was offered a fixed term contract until the 19th of December 2014. The claimant accepted and signed the contract on those terms. DH told the Tribunal that the claimant had continuity of service and this was reflected in his contract with a commencement date of the 8th of April 2013. 

  On the 18th of December 2014 EB wrote to the claimant confirming an extension to his temporary contract until the 23rd of January 2015. The letter stated:

  “This is written confirmation as per our discussion that your temporary contract and date has been extended until the 23rd January 2015 by mutual consent. 

  Your employment will now be terminated for reasons of “End of Contract” on Friday, 23rd January 2015. 

  We will continue to seek alternative employment, and will keep you updated with any future developments.” 

  During this time a period of lay-off was agreed with EB and the staff until the 5th of January 2015. 

  On the 7th of January 2015 an incident regarding the claimant occurred. At a meeting the following day with EB the claimant was suspended pending further investigation. EB emailed DH that evening to inform her the claimant was suspended due to his behaviour towards colleagues and management. A formal letter of suspension was sent to the claimant. 

  On the 14th of January EB emailed DH informing her the client had informed him the date of the cessation of the temporary contract remained the 23rd of January. EB asked DH to complete the relevant paperwork for those staff who would be let go. However, as one of the scaffolder was leaving the company there was a need for one scaffolder to remain with the respondent. EB asked DH to compile and up-to-date matrix to decide which employee would remain on after the 23rd of January 2015. The claimant was not chosen from this matrix.

  On the 15th of January 2015 the claimant was invited to a disciplinary meeting on the 21st of January relating to the incident on the 7th of January. He was advised her could bring a fellow employee or his union representative. 

  The following day the claimant emailed DH requesting copies of certain documentation including-

  “A copy of all Toolbox Box Talks and the signed registers from all the sites that I have attended as a (respondent named) employee from my start date April 2013. 

              A copy of my initial contract.           

              A copy of (respondent named) disciplinary procedure.

              A copy of (respondent named) code of conduct.” 

  On the 19th of January 2015 the claimant’s union representative requested the meeting scheduled for the 21st be postponed. DH agreed but informed the union representative that “normally they would be happy to agree a re-scheduled date” but that the claimant’s employment was due to end on Friday the 23rd of January by means of End of Contract.” She also stated that 

  “As a result of the limited time available to re-schedule the hearing, (respondent named) have decided not to pursue disciplinary action against (the claimant). However, should (the claimant) be re-employed in the future the hearing will be pending. In the mean-time (the claimant) will remain on paid leave for the remainder of the week until Friday 23rd.”  

  The claimant’s contract naturally ended on the 23rd of January 2015 and he was let go. Five other employees were also let go on that day. 

  Some-time later work became available and scaffolders were required. DH contacted the claimant and two other former colleagues of his. When she offered the claimant work in Limerick he declined it saying he had work of his own to complete and he was going on leave. 

  On the 1st of July 2015 the claimant’s solicitor wrote to DH stating the claimant had been unfairly dismissed arising from the expiry of the terms of his contract and without it being renewed. The solicitor further stated that if the claimant was not reemployed he would take a claim to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. 

  DH replied on the 14th of July 2015 stating the claimant had been offered work in late February 2015 and had declined the offer. The claimant had not made any further contact with respondent and suggested he contact them directly. The claimant did not. 

  DH told the Tribunal that the respondent would have re-hired the claimant at any time. 

  Under cross-examination DH told the Tribunal that two separate matric were compiled and the criteria included time-keeping, attendance and disciplinary record. A separate matric was devised for each trade. 

  When asked DH said on the first matrix the claimant had two absences recorded and the second matrix he had one recorded. The claimant had never disputed or challenged these absences prior to this hearing. 

  DH told the Tribunal that all staff were fully aware how the matrix was scored. 

  DH agreed the claimant had requested certain documentation before the scheduled disciplinary hearing but he had not specified which Toolbox Talks he required. There had been quite a number of talks during his employment with the respondent.

  DH agreed some of the claimant’s colleagues had returned to work after the 23rd of January 2015. 

  DH refuted the disciplinary issue regarding the claimant was the reason for his employment being terminated. It was because his temporary contract had terminated. 

  EB, the respondent’s Project Manager, gave evidence. He explained, in detail, the Tool Box Talks that took place with all the relevant staff on a daily basis to identify when and what work was to carried out. Weather conditions were also one of the issues on the daily agenda due to the nature of the work being carried out in the location on the west coast. 

  In late October 2014 the respondent’s client informed them the work was coming to an end for the respondent’s employees. EB informed DH in Human Resources and asked her to compile a matrix to ascertain which employees would be let go and which would remain, if required. 

  EB then met with all staff, including the claimant, to inform them that of their impending redundancies. He also gave them written notification. EB told the Tribunal, no one, including the claimant, raised any issues concerning the matrix. Issues regarding notice were raised. He had about fifteen meetings with staff during October 2014. 

  On the 14th of November 2014 EB was informed by the respondent’s client there was another five weeks of additional work available. Four scaffolders and two general operatives were required. The first person to be re-hired was the claimant. The claimant was issued a temporary contract to expire on the 19th of December 2014. 

  On the 18th of December 2014 the claimant was sent a letter to inform him of an extension to his temporary contract to the 23rd of January 2015. 

  Following this EB spoke to the staff, including the claimant regarding a period of lay-off over the Christmas period. The alternative was they would be let go. It was mutually agreed all staff would take the offer of a period of lay-off until the 5th of January 2015. 

  On the 7th of January 2015 and incident occurred with the claimant regarding him refusing to work on the platform. EB had received an email FK (a Health and Safety employee of the respondent’s client) informing them of high winds. EB went on site to speak to the staff. The claimant was not present and he had not arrived at the site. EB told the staff that if they felt unsafe they were to inform their supervisor and work would cease. DOS, the HESQ Officer informed him what had occurred with the claimant. It was decided to suspend the claimant with pay pending further investigation into the incident. 

  The following day EB emailed DH to inform her of the claimant’s suspension. On the 12th of January 2015 EB wrote to the claimant formally advising him of his continuing suspension with pay. The letter stated: 

  “Further to the investigation meeting you had with (DOS), this is written confirmation that you have been suspended from duty with immediate effect whilst the following allegation(s) of misconduct are investigated. 

              Allegations: 

  Failing to follow reasonable management instruction on Wednesday, 7th January 2015 by refusing to go to the workplace due to weather conditions. 

  Disruptive behaviour due to inappropriate threats to (respondent) and (client) personnel regarding the above matter.” 

  On the 16th of January 2015 EB emailed DH informed her one of the scaffolder was leaving his employment and his position would have to be filled. EB asked DH to compile a second matrix. Having reviewed the matrix it was decided which scaffolder would remain working for the respondent. It was not the claimant and his employed terminated due to his contract ended on the 23rd of January 2015 as previously decided. 

  Under cross-examination EB stated that he had a “cordial” relationship with the claimant. They did have a difference of opinion from time to time. He refuted he had told the claimant he would not get paid for sheltered from the adverse weather conditions. EB said he had no issue with any staff sheltering from the bad weather. He agreed that it was him that had decided to suspend the claimant following the incident on the 7th of January 2015. There had been no issues with any other scaffolders that day. 

  When asked he said he could not recall if he had told the claimant to use the grievance procedure if he had any grievances.           

  DOS, a Health, Safety, Environment and Quality (HSEQ) Officer gave evidence. 

  He explained that all works carried are risk assessed, permits are issued but the works continue to be assessed through the day. He explained weather reports were issued and discussed with staff at Tool Box Talks. 

  DOS told the Tribunal that he was on site on the 7th of January 2015. He had met the claimant in the drying room. DOS said that no-one had come to him with any issues regarding health and safety on that day. 

  On the 12th of January 2015 he held an investigation meeting with a number of people who had been on site on the 7th of January 2015 including the claimant, AB and JB. (Minutes of meetings were opened to the Tribunal). DOS said he had not made the decision to suspend the claimant pending further investigation. 

  Under cross-examination DOS said he ha d been present in the drying room when the claimant said to AB that he should “grow a set of balls” but had not asked the claimant what he had meant by the comment. 

  When put to him DOS said that the issue with the claimant on the day in question was the fact that he would not go down to the site. Other employees had and other contractors had been working there that day. 

  DOS agreed that the permit for the task in question had been signed off on 8.20am which was 6 minutes after the email regarding the weather conditions had been sent by F and agreed this was 23 minutes before it was forwarded to the relevant managers but stated that the report had been sent to the relevant person, who compiled the permit, the previous evening. 

  Claimant’s Case: 

  FK, a Health and Safety employee, of the respondent’s client gave evidence. She stated that on the 6th of January 2015 she received an email form the ground tenant (S) on the site regarding the weather for the upcoming days. It stated it would be getting quite windy through the week with strong gusts that could reach up to 21m/s. It also stated: 

  “N.B. It would be worthwhile to monitor any high sided logistical movements, working at height and crane movements for this time period with regard risk assessments and mitigation measures.” 

  FK in turn emailed various contractors on site including EB from the respondent company attaching the email and weather chart from S. She stated: 

  “All, see alert below from S. Winds expected to reach 75km today, please ensure all material is secure in the TCF and Shelvins, and all work at height on the Footprint/Shelvins is risk assessed. Cease work on exposed areas if there is high risk.” 

  FK explained that all work at high levels was rick assessed in adverse weather conditions as it could be dangerous to work at heights in high winds. 

  When asked FK said she did not know what scope of work was being carried out on the day the claimant was suspended, the 7th of January 2015. 

  The claimant had spoken to her that day, after lunch, about his concerns of working in high winds. She told the Tribunal that she knew by his conversation that he would bring the matter further and possibly make trouble for the respondent. 

  Under cross-examination FK said she felt the claimant had not threatened her personally when he spoke to her on the 7th of January 2015. 

  JB, a former colleague of the claimant’s gave evidence. He stated that he had been on lay-off, like the claimant, over the Christmas period in 2014. He resumed work in January 2015 but was informed that the contract would come to an end. 

  In Late January / early February 2015 he received a call from a colleague, (IG) informing him there was work available. JB contacted DH, the Senior Human Resources Manager, to enquire. JB later received a call offering his work with the respondent. This work was in Dublin. JB moved to the site in Moneypoint three to four weeks later. JB left the respondent’s employment in October 2015. 

  JB told the Tribunal he was on site on the 7th of January 2015. He said he agreed with the claimant that they should not have worked on site that day. The weather was too bad. JB said he had told the Supervisor AB that it was too bad to work outside. He said he had discussed the issue of being paid while sheltering from the adverse weather with EB who informed him he would be paid but EB said the claimant would not. 

  On the 12th of January 2015 JB attended an investigation meeting with DOS, the HSEQ Officer regarding the incident on the 7th of May 2015. JB told the Tribunal that at the start of the meeting he tried to raise certain issues but was told by DOS he could not. 

  Under cross-examination JB said that he could not recall exactly the first thing that was said at the meeting with DOS. JB told the Tribunal that DOS said the claimant was 100% correct in what he did but, when asked, JB said he was unsure what DOS meant by it. 

  When put to him JB said that the permit for the task in question on the 7th of January 2015 did not have two issues entered on it when he signed off on it. These two issues were “monitor weather conditions” and “when changing jobs”. 

  The claimant gave evidence. He gave a detailed account of his previous employment as a scaffolder prior to his employment with the respondent. He had received an initial contract of employment on the 8th of Aril 2014 which was extended in November 2014 until December 2014 and extended further until the 23rd of January 2015. When asked he stated that he had received the respondent’s health and safety booklet but could not recall if he had read it through. Health and safety was paramount due to the nature of the site and all staff were issued with regulation PPE gear. He reported to his Supervisor AB. 

  In February 2014 issues arose between the claimant and EB. On the 13th of February 2014 the claimant sent DH a detailed email regarding the issues which concerned working on the workface without a permit and the claimant requesting new PPE leggings. EB told him to commence work on the workface without a permit and was annoyed the claimant had come to him during working hours to request a pair of replacement PPE leggings. 

  When asked, the claimant said that he could not recall receiving a reply from DH on the 24th of February 2014 regarding his email on the13th of February 2014. 

  In October 2014 all staff on site attended a four hour re-induction course. Following this health and safety “stepped up”. 

  The claimant told the Tribunal of a tragic family incident that had occurred on a site previously which had encouraged him to be more safety conscious on site. 

  On the 30th of October 2014 letters were sent to all employees, including the claimant, regarding a downturn in work locally. The claimant attended a meeting regarding this but told the Tribunal that there was “not much information given.” No-one knew who would be laid off. The claimant told the Tribunal that he never had sight of the matrix that was compiled to decided who would be kept and who would be let go. 

  When put to him that he had scored six out of ten for unauthorised absences he replied that he had had no unauthorised absences. 

  In November 2014 his contract was extended due until the 19th of December 2014 due to the fact the client had extra work for some of the respondent’s employees. 

  On the 18th of December 2014 the claimant’s contract was again extended to the 23rd of January 2015. 

  On the 7th of January 2015 a issue arose where the claimant would not go don to the workface sue to the adverse weather. The claimant explained in detail what had occurred that day. Words were exchanged between him and EB. The claimant told the Tribunal that he had not threatened anyone that day but had refused to work in the adverse conditions. He agreed he had not gone down to the workface that morning to access the area with his colleagues.

  The following day the claimant was called to a meeting and was suspended with pay pending further investigation. A letter confirming his suspension was sent to him on the 12th of January 2015. The claimant contacted his union representative. 

  On the 15th of January 2015 the claimant was invited to a disciplinary meeting to be held on the 21st of January 2015. On the 16th of January the claimant emailed DH requesting certain documentation regarding his contract and Tool Box Talks he had attended. 

  On the 19th of January the claimant’s union representative contacted DH to request a postponement of the meeting set for the 21st of January 2015. DH replied informing the union representative that they would normally had no issue re-scheduling the meeting but the claimant’s contract of employment ceased on the 23rd of January 2015 and due to that the respondent had decided not to pursue the disciplinary action. However if the claimant was re-employed in the future the hearing would be pending. 

  On the 22nd of January 2015 DH replied to the claimant’s request for information. 

  The claimant did not return to work for the respondent and a letter dated the 22nd of January 2015 was sent to the claimant to confirm his contract had ended. 

  The claimant told the Tribunal that he was not surprised to receive the letter as it “suited EB” for him not to return to work for the respondent. 

  Around the 29th of January 2015 DH contacted the claimant to ask if he was interested in working in Limerick. A Supervisor there had mentioned the claimant to HR. The claimant said DH informed him it was just a few days work. He told DH he would be interested but he was doing a training course, was taking a week’s leave and wanted to deal with the disciplinary matter. DH said she would be in contact with him again but was not. 

  The claimant told the Tribunal that he felt DH was only doing a “ticking the box exercise”. 

  The claimant gave evidence of his efforts to mitigate his loss of earnings since his employment terminated with the respondent. 

  Under cross-examination the claimant stated that he felt there had not been a redundancy situation, he had been on temporary lay-off, in the middle of a disciplinary process and other staff had been re-hired after he was let go.

  The claimant refuted he had threatened anyone on the7th of January 2015. 

  When asked if he had requested to view the matrix compiled to decide who would be kept on, he replied that he had not and had not known it was available to be viewed. 

  AB, the claimant’s Supervisor gave evidence. He explained in detail how work permits were compiled for each task on site. Six or seven could be required in any one day. They were usually compiled the night before as EB wanted staff on site by 8a.m. AB explained that when they received the permit they, including the team, would go onsite to access the task to be carried out and they would discuss the work involved and if they were any safety issues. If all was okay they work would then be completed by the team. 

  AB gave a detailed account of what had occurred on the morning of the 7th of January 2015 when the claimant refused to go down to the workface due to the adverse weather conditions. AB told the Tribunal that the rest of the team did go down onsite, accessed the situation and sheltered onsite until they could carry out the work at around 12p.m. when the weather broke. 

  AB told the Tribunal that he had told EB what had occurred with the claimant and left him to deal with it. AB said EB could be a difficult person to deal with and had “lost the plot” that morning. It was EB’s “way or no way”. 

  Later that day he and the team met EB in the office as the team wanted to know if they would be paid as they had sheltered that morning. The claimant had told them EB had told him they would not. EB informed them they would be paid. 

  AB old the Tribunal, when asked, that there was no permit for work to be carried in the yard on the 7th of January 2015. This was the work EB had told the claimant to do that day. 

  Under cross-examination AB said he still worked on the same site but for another employer. 

  When put to him he said that he had told the team to “use their heads” on the morning of the 7th of January 2015 regarding the weather conditions. 

  AB told the Tribunal that it had been the claimant’s decision not to go to the workface on the morning of the 7th of January 2015, he could not “make him.” 

  Determination 

  This was a claim for Unfair Dismissal by the Claimant, which was defined in his TI-A as "...dismissal which consisted of the expiry of the term of his contract without it being renewed...".   Prior to the Tribunal dealing with this matter, a preliminary matter arose in respect of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the matter as the Respondent submitted that the Claimant had not lodged his claim within the Statutory period of six month from date of termination. The Respondent’s case was that the Claimants termination date was 23rd January 2015 so the claim should have been lodged prior to the 23rd July 2015 whereas it was not received by the Workplace Relations Committee until the 27th July 2015. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties in respect of same but held in favour of the Claimant on the basis that while there was two Contracts of Employment, the second Contract referred back to the earlier date from which the Tribunal held that the Contract had indefinite duration which entitled the Claimant to one’s weeks’ notice which brought him within the statutory time frame.

  The facts of the case, as furnished to the Tribunal, via oral evidence and documentation is as follows; 

  The Claimant worked with the Respondent from the 8th April 2013 until the 11th November 2014, when he was let go by reason of redundancy, due to a reduction in the Workforce required. The Respondent used the Matrix System for the purposes of deciding the redundancies. The Respondent never took issue with the Matrix system not appealed his Letter to Termination when he received it. It is clear from the evidence given by the Claimant at the hearing that he accepted that the position with the Respondent was temporary only, and depended on work being available. 

  After the Respondent had served Notice on the Claimant, they experienced a sudden unforeseen increase in work and were in a position to offer the Claimant a Fixed Term Contract from the 17th November 2014 to the 19th December 2014. The Claimant accepted this work and signed a Contract, which included a clause that stated that the Unfair Dismissal Act did not apply, as the work was for a specific time and purpose. (Evidence was given by the Respondent that the Claimants service with them was recognised in this Contract, which is why the Contract was dated as at the Claimant’s original start date with the Respondent.) When the Contract was due to expire, an extension of the Contract until the 23rd of January 2015 was offered to the Claimant and the Claimant signed a Letter of Extension forwarded to him and returned it to the Company. 

  Much was made about the incident which occurred on the 7th January 2015 when the Claimant refused to work in adverse weather conditions for which he was suspended and the ensuing Investigation which occurred thereafter, which matters the Tribunal are satisfied have no relevance to the claim for dismissal before them. 

  Of particular interest to the Tribunal was the fact that the Claimant gave evidence at the hearing that he accepted that there was a redundancy situation when he was let go in November 2014. He also stated in evidence that he knew he would be back as there was work available, and this indeed transpired when he was offered a Fixed Term Contract on the 17th of November 2014, which was later extended to the 23rd of January 2015. The Claimant gave evidence that he accepted that the work available under this Contract was temporary. He signed all paperwork in relation to the fixed term work, and later, the extension thereof, without quibble. The Tribunal also note that during this time, the Claimant had contact with a legal representative in relation to another matter, but, no query was raised by them with regard to the Claimants employment with the Respondent, which ended during this time. 

  Evidence was further given by the Respondent that the Claimant was contacted in late January 2015 and offered other work but this was refused by the Claimant, due to a variety of reasons. Some months later the Claimant set up his own company and became self-employed. 

  Tribunal have carefully considered the evidence, with particular reference to the facts of the situation and the oral evidence given by the Claimant at the hearing, from which it is clear that the Claimant accepted that the work up to November 2014 was a redundancy situation, and that the work thereafter provided was only temporary. At no point did the Claimant suggest or imply that the redundancy situation which arose or the provision of further work thereafter was, for want of a better word, "staged" so that the Respondent could evade legal responsibilities arising under employment law. Indeed his evidence was clear in that he accepted that this was the way it was, and he had no difficulty with it as, he felt there would always be work available. His only complaint was when he was not re-engaged by the Respondent in January 2015 when other employees were brought back and this complaint appears to be more focused on the identity of the person who re-hired other employees as opposed to the provision of work itself. There was clearly a personality clash between these two individuals and it is the Tribunals opinion that if another employee of the Respondent had engaged in the re-hiring, the Claimant may not have initiated this claim. It is further clear that the Claimant, in signing the fixed term Contract on the 17th November 2014 further accepted that the work was temporary only and confirmed this in his oral evidence. In the circumstancesS2 (2) (b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act applies and the Claimant’s claim must fail.

   

   

  Sealed with the Seal of the 

  Employment Appeals Tribunal  

   

  This   ________________________ 

  (Sgd.) ________________________

       (CHAIRMAN)

•  
•  
•  
•  
•                        
•  
•  
•    
•  
•