EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Carl Campbell UD798/2012
Team Obair Limited – respondent A
S.T.L. Logistics - respondent B
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms F. Crawford B.L.
Members: Mr F. Cunneen
Mr. P. Woods
heard this claim at Dublin on 9th July 2013 and 29th May 2014
Claimant : Mr Vernon Hegarty, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1
Respondents : Mr Richard Hendrick, Team Obair Limited,
10A Grattan Crescent, Inchicore, Dublin 8-respondent A
Mr Michael Cusack, S.T.L. Logistics, Annacotty Business Park,
Annacotty, Co. Limerick –respondent B
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
While working at the Diageo plant in Dublin in September 2011 the claimant was refused entry onto their premises pending the outcome of an investigation. The claimant told the Tribunal he was refused permission into that plant due to a transgression in the use of swipe cards. At that time he was engaged by a firm called Kammac plc who was contracted out by Diageo to undertake work at their site. Kammac plc had secured the claimant’s services through an agency referred here as respondent A. Subsequent to September 2011 Kammac plc was taken over by another entity referred to here as respondent B. All of Kammac plc’s employees were transferred to respondent B.
In evidence the claimant stated he considered himself dismissed by January 2012 as he had not been offered other work since September 2011. However he accepted that respondent A had not dismissed him.
No sworn evidence was adduced by either respondent. In submissions and comments respondent A agreed it did not dismiss the claimant and was unable to offer him more work at Diageo due to the swipe incident. The representative for respondent B stated that it never employed the claimant and therefore never dismissed him.
In this matter, the Tribunal had to unravel various different aspects as to who the actual employer of the Claimant in effect was.
Having heard and considered all the evidence, circumstances of this case and the submissions made, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that a Dismissal had taken place or that there was adequate evidence that there had been a Dismissal by reason of the constructive dismissal of the Applicant.
The Claimant found himself in a situation whereby the place he had been working no longer wanted him at that site in circumstances beyond the control of the Employer (The First Named Respondent).
As outlined above, the Tribunal is not satisfied there was a dismissal of the Claimant irrelevant of the contested evidence that offers of alternative work and employment were made by the First Named Respondent.
Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 must fall.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal