Benjamin Aihie v Noonans services Group Ltd [Employment Appeals Tribunal]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 July 2010
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2010] 7 JIEC 1601
• Date: 16 July 2010
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Representation:

Claimant: Mr. Paudie O'Mahony, Babington, Clarke & Mooney, Solicitors, 48 South Mall, Cork

Respondent: Mr. John Barry, Management Support Services (Ireland) Limited, The Courtyard, Hill Street, Dublin 1

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Preliminary issue - 6 month time limit for claims - Availability for alternate work - Constructive dismissal - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2007

CLAIMS OF:	CASE NO.
Benjamin Aihie, 19 Mahon Drive, Mahon, Blackrock, Cork	UD1118/2009 MN1130/2009 WT503/2009

against

Noonans Services Group Limited Hilton House, Unit 3 Swords Business Park, Swords, Co. Dublin

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Mr. E. Murray
Members:	Mr. D. Hegarty
	Mr. J. Flavin

heard these claims in Cork on the 25th of May 2010 and 16th of July 2010

Facts The Tribunal considered whether the claimant had brought the claim with the six months period but found that as there was confusion on the exact date of termination they allowed the case proceed. After the respondent took over a cleaning contract the claimant's hours changed. He was unable to work the new hours because of religious commitments. The respondent sought to find morning work for him but this was not possible because of an educational course he had taken on. The claimant was unable to operate one of the machines used in the job as he was an amputee. The respondent held meeting with the claimant to seek a remedy.

Held by the Tribunal finding in favour of the respondent, that there was no constructive nor any other kind of dismissal that the respondent took reasonable steps to seek alternative placement for the claimant but because of the claimant's own difficulties regarding availability this proved impossible.

Reporter: BD

1 Preliminary Issue

2 The application in this instance was not brought within six months of the alleged dismissal. Having heard submissions made on behalf of the parties in this regard, the Tribunal took the view that there was a lack of clarity with regard to the date of termination. The Claimant received his P45 from the Respondent on the 7th of January 2009. The application was brought within six months of this date. In all the circumstances the Tribunal took...