EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Farnham Resort Limited T/A Radisson SAS Farnham Estate Hotel (in receivership)
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2015
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms O. Madden B.L.
Members: Mr T. O'Grady
Mr A. Butler
heard this claim at Dublin on 6th January 2017
Claimant: Mr. Gerard Nevin, Keaney Nevin, Solicitors, 6 Tower Hamlet, Farnham Street, Cavan, Co Cavan
Respondent: Eoin Ryan, (receiver), McKeogh Gallagher Ryan, 45 O'Connell Street, Limerick (not in attendance)
At the outset of the hearing a representative from Eversheds Solicitors made herself known to the Tribunal and informed them that she was in attendance as a watching brief on behalf of the receiver. Time was given to the claimant and his representative to confirm that the respondent stated was the correct employer. Following C.R.O. searches, letters in the claimants file and confirmation from Revenue as to the named respondent, the Tribunal were happy that the named respondent was the employer at the time of the dismissal.
The watching brief then requested an adjournment but this was denied by the Tribunal as she had no locus standi, no T2 had been submitted and they had not engaged in any way before the hearing. The notice of hearing was served (not returned) and an adjournment could have been sought through normal process.
The claimants ES gave uncontested evidence of his request to return to work after a lengthy period of sick leave (August 2012 to March 2014). Prior to his sick leave he worked a two/three day week, the third day paid as time in lieu. He told the Tribunal that his doctor advised that he could return to certain types of light work. He was called to a meeting with HR in March 2014, to review the doctor’s report and asked if he could think of any at areas to work. ES suggested areas like customer service, front of house, bar work.
He was advised that if the respondent could not find a suitable position his contract could be terminated due to medical reasons/incapacity and he was told they would be in touch. At a follow up meeting on 9th April he was told that no alternative position had been found, his contract may be terminated but they would consider anything he could come up with, within the following week. He received a letter dated 10th April asking him to attend on 18th April, to bring a representative and stating that the outcome could have serious implications for him.
A follow up meeting was held on 18th April, he was asked if he had come up with other options for them to look at and his medical certificates were discussed. He was then called to another meeting on 23rd April and it was stated again that the outcome of the meeting could have serious implications for his future employment. He was told at that meeting that no other role could be found for him and that his contract was terminated with immediate effect. A cheque for a final payment of one month’s salary plus holiday was given to him and he was given leave to appeal.
The claimant gave evidence of loss and told the Tribunal that he has been in receipt of carers allowance since 30th October 2014.
The Tribunal having heard the uncontested evidence of the claimant is satisfied that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal awards the claimant the sum of €24,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal