EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Liam O'Dea, RP794/2012
UD1048/2012 MN676/2012
against
Araglin Supplies Limited T/A Pat O'Dea,
Under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr P. Hurley
Members: Mr W. O'Carroll
Ms H. Henry
heard this claim at Limerick on 29th April 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr Stephen McNamara, McNamara, Solicitors, Kickham Street,
Nenagh, Co Tipperary
Summary of Evidence
The claimant was employed with the respondent in the construction industry. The owner of the respondent company is the claimant’s brother. The claimant gave evidence of a fractious relationship which culminated in him being told to pack up his tools and leave, as his brother didn’t trust him to do work correctly on site. He turned up for work the following Friday but the site was closed. The following week he went to the site and when his brother arrived he told him to “sling it”, that he wasn’t working for him anymore.
The claimant understood himself to be dismissed or made redundant and wrote a letter seeking clarification of same. The respondent replied, giving the claimant a final written warning, asking that he refrain from being verbally abusive and asking that he carry out his duties in a method as prescribed by his employer. The claimant refuted the allegations entirely, felt that his position was untenable and did not return to work.
The respondent told the Tribunal that the claimant was often missing from work and there had been numerous verbal altercations with him. On the day of the incident he had left strict instructions with the claimant on how to remove timber framing from a fire damaged house, it was to be done in sections as to maintain the safety of the building and the employees. On his return to the site later that day he was horrified to see sections left all over the floor. He told his brother that he was putting people at risk and was told “if you don’t like it do it yourself”.
The respondent told the employees that he was closing the site and would remain himself for as long as it took to do the job correctly. The claimant returned to the site some time later and said that he wanted his redundancy. The respondent told him that he was suspended but continued to pay him for a further eight weeks. On receipt of a letter from the claimant he advised him that it was a final written warning and looked for an undertaking of good behaviour but the claimant never returned, instead took this case to the Tribunal.
Determination:
Having heard all the evidence in this case the Tribunal notes that the claimant offered no evidence to substantiate an unfair dismissal or a redundancy situation, his job remained.
Evidence given by the claimant and correspondence given by the respondent show that the claimant failed to attend for work as outlined, against a background of a running dispute with his brother. The claimant was asked to return to work (by way of a letter) on the understanding of his refraining from verbal abuse, and carrying out his duties in a manner as required by his employer. He failed to meet these terms and absented himself from work.
The claims under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employments Acts 1973 to 2005 therefore fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)