EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Renaud Viel, (claimant) UD1772/2012
Mongodb Limited (respondent)
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr G. Hanlon
Members: Mr C. Lucey
Mr F. Keoghan
heard this claim at Dublin on 13th February 2014
Claimant(s) : Mr. Ruadhan Killeen, Killeen, Solicitors, 14 Mountjoy Square, Dublin 1
Respondent(s) : Mr James Scanlon, Maples And Calder, Solicitors, 75 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
The Tribunal has been asked to make a preliminary decision as to whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the claim brought by the claimant under the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977.
The respondent contends that the claimant’s employment commenced on the 7th November 2011 and ended on the 19th October 2012 and accordingly constitutes less than 1 years’ service as is required under the 1977 act in order to bring a claim.
The respondent also contends that the contract of employment entered into between the parties permits the respondent to summarily terminate, without notice, the contract under clause 13 of the contract.
The respondent goes on to contend that if the provision of section 1 (b) of the 1977 Act were applied to the service of the claimant, that by virtue of the contract termination can be summary and consequently is the 19th October 2011 and not 19th November 201. In addition application of section 1 (b) (ii) would extend the date to 26th October 2012. In any case the respondent claims either application sees the claimant short of the necessary 1 year required.
The respondent accepts that the employment commenced on 7th November 2011 and the respondent also accepts notice of termination was given on the 19th October 2012. However the respondent contends that the contract provides that under clause 3 of the contract that any termination provides for 1 months’ notice.
On reading Section 3 of the contract of employment it clearly states:
“the employment commences on 7th November 2011 unless terminated in accordance with clause Summery Termination, shall continue until terminated by either party giving to the other not less than 1 month’s prior written notice or the statutory minimum whichever is the greater…..”
It is clear that there would appear to be some conflict between clauses 3 and 13 in that in effect the employer could render clause 3 of the contract utterly meaningless by invoking clause 13. What is of particular relevance to the tribunal therefore is the letter of the 19th October 2012 from the respondent to the claimant wherein the company states:
“the Company will pay your contractual entitlements to one month’s salary in lieu of notice and for the all outstanding holiday entitlements and or commission that may be due to you as of the 19th October 2012.”
It is clear therefore as of the 19th October 2012 the company was affording the claimant one months’ notice in line with clause 3 and consequently the Tribunal is satisfied that the notice period ran from the date of the letter 19th October 2012. Consequently the Tribunal determines that it has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal