EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Muhammad Fahim - claimant UD1212/2013
Murphy's Supervalu - respondent
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. T. Ryan
Members: Mr C. McHugh
Mr C. Ryan
heard this claim at Dublin on 29th April 2014
Claimant(s): The claimant in person
Respondent(s): The manager in person
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on the 3 February 2008. His employment was uneventful until the 3rd February 2013. The claimant was due to finish work at 9p.m. Everything was done by 9.10p.m and then his supervisor Ms AR told him that he could not leave the shop and that all the staff would leave together. Ms. AR locked the door and the claimant stood at the main door until 9.20p.m. At 9.20p.m. the assistant manager Ms S came down and he told her that he had finished his job. Ms. S told him in a very aggressive manner that he was dismissed and that he was not to return to work again.
The next day MD, HR telephoned him at approx. 11 to 12 o clock and requested him to attend a meeting on the 6th or 7th February 2013 but he could not attend. On the 15 February 2013 he attended a meeting with the store manager and MD, HR. He requested TM as a witness. He was asked to sign a letter which outlined that he failed to attend two meetings but he refused to sign the letter as it was untrue. He asked for a copy of the letter but he was not given it. MD and the store manager told him that he was shouting. The claimant stated that he did not shout at the meeting and the meeting concluded.
On the 7 March 2013 he forwarded a letter of complaint to HR. He asked the reason for his dismissal and CCTV recording of the 3 February 2013. He did not receive a response to this letter. After the 25 April 2013 he lodged a complaint with the Employment Appeals Tribunal. He never received telephone calls from the respondent after the 15 February 2014.
The first witness for the respondent AR told the Tribunal that on the 3 February 2013 the claimant asked her could he close the tills and she told him that he could not. She asked him to bring down the rubbish to the back stores at 9.10p.m. The claimant started work at 4.30p.m. and was due to finish at 9p.m. She asked him would he look after the off licence to ensure that it was okay and he told her that he was in a hurry to get his bus. She told him that all employees had buses to get and it was the practice that they all left the shop together.
The second witness for the respondent Mr. S told the Tribunal that on 3 February 2013 at closing time customers knocked on the door to get in. The claimant was asked to do a face off for the next day and he refused to do so.
The third witness for the respondent MD, HR told the claimant that on the 4 February 2013 she went to work at 10.30a.m. She telephoned the claimant and asked him to come in for a quick chat in relation to a complaint made by his then colleagues Ms S and AR. Initially the claimant contacted her and told her that he had a complaint to make. She asked the claimant for his version of events. The claimant told her that he would not give her his address. The claimant told her that he was in college and that he did not collect the second letter. He told her that he could not attend a meeting without a letter.
At a meeting with the claimant on the 15 February 2011 she tried to discuss the incident which occurred on the 3 February 2013 but the claimant kept raising his voice. The claimant directed his answers to the store manager. If anyone made a complaint against the claimant he would retaliate. She had to discontinue the meeting as she was not making any progress. She told the claimant that she had to hear both versions of events. She told the claimant that he was not dismissed. She contacted the claimant on a few occasions and told him that his job with the respondent was available for him.
The fourth witness for the respondent TM told the Tribunal that the claimant requested him to attend as a witness at a meeting on the 15 February 2013. Present at the meeting were the store manager AO and MD, HR. The claimant was a little bit excited and loud. MD told the claimant to calm down and she told him that he was not dismissed. No one felt threatened by the claimant at the meeting.
The fifth witness for the respondent AO the store manager told the Tribunal that he did not know how the claimant thought he was fired. He was not present in the shop on the 3 February 2013. The claimant was informed verbally that his job was always available for him. He told the claimant on the 3th February 2013 that he was not fired. He did not respond to the claimant’s complaint in writing as the claimant would not provide him with his address. The claimant told him that he was not coming in to the shop. The respondent had done all it could up to the 15 February 2013. He did not ask a former employee Ms. S. to attend the hearing.
Having heard all the evidence in this case the Tribunal finds that the claimant was dismissed. However the claimant made a significant contribution to his dismissal. In the circumstances the Tribunal awards the claimant compensation of €2,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal