This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

Return to Search

MND2210

FULL RECOMMENDATION

MN/19/2
ADJ-00007054, CA-00009499-001

DETERMINATION NO. MND2210

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

PARTIES :

THE CORK OPERA HOUSE PLC
(REPRESENTED BY RACHEL FLYNN, B.L., INSTRUCTED BY JRAP O’MEARA SOLICITORS)

- AND -

MR DERMOT O' DRISCOLL

DIVISION :

Chairman:	Ms O'Donnell
Employer Member:	Mr Murphy
Worker Member:	Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No’s: ADJ-00007054, CA-00009499-001.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 18 December 2018 in in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Labour Court hearings took place on 11 July 2022.The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION :

This is an appeal by Dermot O’ Driscoll (Complainant) against decision ADJ-00007054, of an Adjudication Officer in his complaint against his then employer Cork Opera House DAC (the Respondent). The complaint was made pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 (the Act) in a claim against the Respondent that he was not paid his minimum notice The Adjudication Officer held that complaint is not well founded. There is a linked case UD/19/4.

Background

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Financial Controller from the 25^th August 2010 to the 9^th September 2016 when his employment came to an end. The Complainant claims that he was unfairly dismissed by his employer on the 9th September 2016. The Respondent disputes that there was a dismissal and submits that the Complainant resigned and therefore an entitlement to minimum notice did not arise. The Complainant lodged his complaint with the WRC on the 8^th November 2016.

The Complainant was not represented and as he wished to give sworn evidence to the Court, he was sworn in at the commencement of the hearing.

Decision

This case is linked to UD/19/4 where the Court has determined that the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct and insubordination was fair. The Respondent’s policies provides that no notice is payable in respect of dismissal for gross misconduct in line with section 8 of the Act. Therefore, the Complainants complaint must fail.

The appeal fails. The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

	Louise O'Donnell
CN	______________________
4 August 2022	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Cathal Nerney, Court Secretary.