EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Laura McGuirk, RP676/2013
Giraffe The Agency (Liquidation/Receivership),
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. C. Corcoran BL
Members: Mr. T.P. Flood
Mr F. Keoghan
heard this case in Dublin on 12 August 2014
No legal or trade union representation
Mr Noel McSharry,
Unit 2, Rosemount Business Park,
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The appellant claimed that her employment, which commenced on 1 July 2008, ended without proper notice by reason of redundancy on 2 May 2013. Her gross weekly pay was €692.31.
At the Tribunal hearing the appellant stated that she had worked for the respondent as an account manager but that in early 2013 JOC (the respondent’s managing director) told her that he was looking at options for a buy-out. The appellant looked for work and in April 2013 she told him that she had got a job offer. They discussed a notice period. She was to end on 10 May 2013. The respondent asked for a resignation. She was subsequently asked to end on 2 May 2013. She did so after only working eight days’ notice.
On 9 May 2013 the respondent was closed by JOC. The appellant told the Tribunal that she would have been still in her position if she had been allowed to work her full notice period. She believed that JOC had shortened her notice period to deny her a redundancy payment. All other employees got a redundancy lump sum. She had been due five or six days’ holidays.
NM (the respondent’s liquidator) furnished the Tribunal with copies of the appellant’s 23 April 2013 resignation letter. His position was that she had resigned and had received all her entitlements. She had worked out her notice between 23 April 2013 and 2 May 2013. She was paid her notice and holiday pay.
Asked if the appellant had been asked to write the 23 April 2013 letter, NM did not deny having been told that but said that it had not been known that the respondent would go into liquidation.
JOC confirmed to the Tribunal that he had been managing the respondent when the appellant had resigned. As account manager he had regarded her as “important” and “an essential cog” for the respondent. In April 2012 there had been a reduction in staff but the respondent still “lost money” and “only just broke even”. On 23 April 2014 the appellant told him that she was resigning and gave him the letter. On hearing that she was leaving, he “wished her all the best”. She wanted to leave in two weeks and on 24 April 2013 she said that she would finish by early May 2013.
The respondent ceased trading on 9 May 2013. The appellant had resigned but JOC was told that she wanted to claim redundancy. JOC denied that the appellant had been asked to sign her resignation letter. He had wanted her to stay on but she had said that she was going to KC (a concrete company) and that this would save her a lot of commuting inconvenience.
JOC told the Tribunal that he was “livid” at what the appellant had subsequently alleged.
Recalled by the Tribunal, the appellant said that 10 May 2013 had been agreed as her last date. She had told JOC of her new job. They agreed that she would finish on 2 May 2013. Clients were being left with the respondent’s new account manager. The appellant was working out her notice.
Questioned by the Tribunal, the appellant said that on 22 April 2013 she knew of her new job and that she had had to get back to them (KC) with a start date. She had assumed that there would be a month’s notice. The appellant did not allege that she had been left short notice or leave pay.
The respondent’s closing position was that the appellant had finished on 2 May 2013 and that no money remained owing to her.
The appellant’s closing position was that she said that she was to be employed by the respondent until 10 May 2013, that it had ceased trading on 9 May 2013 and that she was entitled to a redundancy lump sum. It was submitted that the appellant had resigned before other employees of the respondent became redundant.
Having carefully considered all of the agreed and conflicting evidence adduced, the Tribunal unanimously finds that the appellant was not entitled to a redundancy payment because she had resigned her employment. The Tribunal was satisfied that she had received all her employment termination entitlements.
The appeal heard under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, and claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005, fail.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal