Arun Mathur v Irish Ispat Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
Judgment Date17 February 1999
Judgment citation (vLex)[1999] 2 JIEC 1701
Date17 February 1999

Employment Appeals Tribunal

Arun Mathur v Irish Ispat Ltd

Representation:

Claimant: In person

Respondent : Mr.. John Lucey, B..L., instructed by Ronan Daly Jermyn,

Solicitors, 12 South Mall,-Cork

Abstract:

Dismissal - Preliminary issue - Jurisdiction - Previous agreement ousting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. UD548/98

CLAIM OF: Arun Mathur, 32 Highbury, Waterpark, Carrigaline, Co Cork against

Irish Ispat Limited, Haulbowline, Cobh, Co Cork

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 1993

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Ms. K.T. O'Mahony-B.L.

Members: Mr O'Leary

Ms. M. Burke

heard this claim at Cork on 16th October 1998

Claimant was dismissed by the respondent from his position as a manager. The respondent offered him £16,600 in full and final settlement from matters arising from the cessation of his employment. Counsel for the respondent submitted that this agreement precluded the claimant from pursuing his claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts. Claimant stated that he had not legal representation to understand what was been offered and it took advantage of his then state of mind. On the preliminary issue the Tribunal determined that the claimant was not advised of his rights under employment protection legislation. They referred to and followed Hurley v Royal Yacht Club [1977] ELR 225. On the dismissal claim, the respondent had taken over Irish Steel which was losing money. The respondent claimed that they warned managers that unless they did their jobs competantly they would be let go. They claimed the claimant was incompetant ant this was the reason to let him go. The claimant said he was praised in his work and received no warnings either oral or written. The Tribunal determined that there was an onus on the respondent to give employee assistance and training and there was no such evidence before the tribunal. General warning to all employees or team talks could not constitute a warning. The Tribunal determined that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded him £8,500 in compensation which was to be added to the figure already paid to him.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Preliminary .Issue: -
1

At the outset of the hearing counsel for the respondent contended that the claimant was precluded from pursuing his claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 -to 1993 before the Tribunal by reason of his...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT