LCR22183

The Claimant, who had been employed as a substitute bus escort, seeks compensation for the non-renewal of his contract of employment which, on its own terms, expired on 28^thJune 2019. The Claimant’s contract commenced on 3^rdSeptember 2018. The Claimant had previously worked for the Respondent for a month in August 2018.

It is common case that the Claimant was subject to disciplinary proceedings arising from an incident which occurred in December 2018. The Claimant submitted that no outcome had flowed from those proceedings. The Respondent submitted that the Claimant had been issued with a final written warning in March 2019. The Claimant submitted that he had never received such a warning.

The Claimant submitted that in the period before the expiry of his contract the Respondent’s principal had advised him that the contract would not be renewed because of ‘the incident’. The Respondent submitted that no such assertion had been made by the principal and submitted that the principal had in fact written to the Claimant’s then representative in July 2019 stating that the Claimant would be welcome to apply for any vacancy should it arise.

It was not disputed that, at the time of expiry of the Claimant’s contract, the Respondent had no confirmation as regards the number of bus escorts that would be approved by the Department of Education for the 2019 / 2020 school year. The Court accepts that it was only when that information was known that any arrangements could be made to renew the contracts of bus escorts.

That confirmation came in August 2019 and the Respondent confirmed with six escorts with permanent contracts that they were available. The Respondent then approached three long standing escorts and offered them contracts. Finally, in October 2019, the Respondent advertised for relief bus escorts and the Claimant did not apply. Neither had the Claimant at any stage given an expression of interest in taking up a role in school year 2019 / 2020 should same become available

The Appellant submitted that he did not want to work for the Respondent after the Respondent principal had asserted to him that his contract would not be renewed because of ‘the incident’. The proposition that the principal had made such an assertion is entirely disputed. The Claimant submitted that he did not apply for relief work in October for the same reason.

It is clear to the Court that, on the most benign interpretation, some level of misunderstanding has occurred between the parties. The parties are disagreed as to whether the Claimant was issued with and received a final written warning in March 2019 and are also disagreed as to the content of an alleged interaction between the Claimant and the Respondent principal in June 2019. The Court is unable to resolve these differences as regards matters of fact.

The Court concludes that the operative reason for non- engagement of the Claimant as a relief escort in October 2019 was the fact that he did not apply for any such post. In all of the circumstances the Court can find no basis to recommend in favour of payment of an award of compensation to the Claimant

The Court therefore recommends that the claim should not be conceded.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
R.K.______________________
06/02/20Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Richard Kennedy, Court Secretary.