EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Caroline Quigley -appellant RP338/2015
against
Markree Castle Ltd T/A Knockmuldowney Restaurant -respondent
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms B. Glynn
Members: Mr T. Gill
Mr T. Gill
heard this appeal at Sligo on 28th September 2016 and 29th November 2016
Representation:
Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr Shane McDermott, Mullaneys, Solicitors, 1-2 Teeling Street, Sligo
The respondent’s representative raised a preliminary issue – that the claimant had handed in her own notice so was not entitled to redundancy. If this was not accepted, then there was an issue with the time limit as the claimant hadn’t looked for work from the respondent in the eight months prior to being issued with a P45.
PD gave evidence of working in the family business as a personnel manager. In June 2014 the hotel was put on the market and was sold in September 2014. It ceased trading the following October. Redundancy payments were made to approximately 52 members of staff. The claimant started working in 2007 working on a ‘casual basis’ at weekends, summer holidays and Christmas holidays. In September/October 2013 the claimant began employment as a teacher. She worked a few shifts up to 21st December but then informed PD she wanted to spend Christmas with her family. PD had her rostered for more hours over the holiday period but accepted her decision. She believed the claimant had finished working for the respondent. PD said that the claimant should have been issued with a P45 but was not until July of 2014.
The hearing adjourned and resumed on 29th November 2016.
The witness was cross-examined. She did not know why the p45 was issued in July 2014, but said it was because of “tax credit and to draw a line”. Regarding the claimant returning to work she explained that they needed good people who knew the ropes and that if the claimant had come back to work they would have employed her.
Regarding payments they paid out all holiday pay and service charges to staff and they paid redundancy payments.
In re-direct the witness explained that they/she would not make someone work a job that they did not want and that their door was open. They had a lot of casual staff, a lot of students.
The Tribunal heard evidence from JO the food and beverage manager. He worked in the respondent for nine years and was responsible for the roster and organising hotel and restaurant functions.
He recalled that around Christmas time 2013 the claimant send him a text message to say that she could not work her next shift as she was very busy over the Christmas time. He received a text from the claimant to say that she did not need a job in the respondent hotel. He understood this because he understood that she had another job as a substitute teacher. He organised someone else to work the shift. He took it that the claimant had resigned. The claimant did not seek work from them again. They were quiet in January but from then on they were busy and there was plenty of work.
The witness was cross-examined.
The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant. She explained that she worked with the respondent from November 2007 to December 2013. She did all types of work.
On or about the 21st or 22nd December 2013, she and NF were asked to work another shift. The claimant “drew the short straw”. She would have missed a family matter. She did initially say yes to working the shift. However she thought about it and sent JO a text to say no. She did text to say she was not coming back but she had meant for the Christmas period only although she accepts it may not have come across like that. She had expected communications from the respondent and maybe she herself should have communicated but they never called her. She waited for management to call her after six years of hard work, she heard nothing.
The work would have been welcome because even though she was training to be a school teacher at the time she had not finished her training. She felt bad she had not called the respondent because she was not the type of person to not call or to not work. She felt sad it had come to this.
She had phoned PD about redundancy and she was refused. She had not intended to leave and she had not sent a written notification of resignation. As to her asking for a reference it was because she had intended to obtain a J1 visa.
The claimant was cross-examined.
Determination:
Based on the evidence heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal determines that the claimant terminated her own employment in December 2013. Regarding entitlement to redundancy, regardless of whether she herself or the employer terminated her employment, she would not have been eligible because of the time difference between December 2013 and the time the redundancies took place later on in 2014. The claimant is not therefore entitled to a redundancy payment. The claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 is dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)