Brunton v Major Enterprises Ltd [Employment Appeals Tribunal]

JurisdictionIreland
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
Judgment Date12 Nov 2003
Judgment citation (vLex)[2003] 11 JIEC 1201

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Brunton v Major Enterprises Ltd

Representation:

Claimant:

Mr. Jimmy Coughlan, Painters Union, SIPTU,

30 Parnell Square, Dublin 1.

Respondent:

Ms. May Folan, Solr. Arthur P. McLean, Solicitors,

31 Parliament Street, Dublin 2.

Abstract:

Employment - Termination of employment - Unfair dismissal - EAT - Whether applicant unfairly dismissed - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2001 - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001.

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD587/2002 RP 171/2002

MN1453/2002 WT135/2002

CLAIMS OF:

James Brunton, 27 Clonshaugh Walk, Dublin 17

against

Major Enterprises Ltd, 36 Goldsmith St, Dublin 7

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2001

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Ms. K. T. O'Mahony B.L.

Members:

Mr. M. Flood

Mr. S. Redmond

heard this claim at Dublin on 13th March 2003 and 21st March 2003

Facts the claimant contended that he had been dismissed by the respondent because he had objected to holiday pay being paid on a weekly basis. The respondent denied that allegation and contended that the applicant had been made redundant because its insurers increased its premium and as a result could not employ as many employees as it previously had. The respondent contended that it applied the “last in, first out” criteria in selecting the claimant for redundancy.

Held in determining that the applicant had been unfairly dismissed and awarding himEur1,500 under the terms of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001, that the respondent genuinely but erroneously believed that the claimant had less service than the other employees but had the respondent had full and proper discussions with the claimant about his situation, before making him redundant, the issue of the claimant's service would have been clarified and it would have been established that at least one of the employee's taken back from the lay-off had less service than the claimant.

The Tribunal further awarded the claimant Eur1,226 compensation in lieu of notice under the terms of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2001

1

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

2

At the outset of the hearing the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2001, was withdrawn.

...

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