Ben Gibson v Euromed Ireland Logistics Ltd and NVD Ltd [Employment Appeals Tribunal]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 01 March 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] 3 JIEC 0101
• Date: 01 March 2011

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Representation:

Claimant: Ms Carol A Hickey, Hickey Dorney, Solicitors, The Square, Passage West, Co Cork

Respondents: The Society Of The Irish Motor Industry, 5 Upper Pembroke Street, Dublin 2

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Transfer of Undertakings - Accident in workplace - Damage of vehicle - Whether employee unfairly dismissed - Council Directive 77/187/EEC - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

CLAIMS OF:	CASE NO.
Ben Gibson, Bellevue, Glenbrook, Co Cork	UD426/2010 MN393/2010

Against

1. Euromed Ireland Logistics Limited, Loughbeg, Ringaskiddy, Co Cork

2. NVD Limited, Marshmeadows, New Ross, Co Wexford

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Mr. E. Murray
Members:	Ms. M. Sweeney
	Ms. H. Kelleher

heard this claim at Cork on 1st March 2011

Facts The claimant had commenced employment with the second-named respondent. It was the nature of the claimant�€�s job that he moved cars in a compound where cars were being shipped in and out. During his employment he was informed that the first-named respondent was taking over the contract. Whilst moving one of the cars the claimant skidded on ice and the car was damaged. The claimant offered to pay for the damage and was presented with a bill of approximately 2,000 euro. The claimant contended that he could not afford this sum. Subsequently he was dismissed from his employment. Evidence was given on behalf of the respondent that damage did occur to cars but was not considered a dismissal offence where it happened only once.

Held by the Tribunal in finding in favour of the claimant. The situation re. the claimant�€�s contract was covered by the Transfer of Undertaking Directive. The claimant was summarily dismissed and the offence in question did not merit dismissal. The claimant was unfairly dismissed and would be awarded €7,000.

Reporter: R.F.

1 The Claimant gave evidence on his own behalf and he told the Tribunal that he commenced employment with the Second Named Respondent in November 2006. The nature of the work was that he moved motorcars in a compound where cars were being shipped to and transported from. On the 30th of October 2009 he was laid off because there was insufficient work for him. During the course of his employment with the Second Named...