Butkys v Coogan Meats Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 16 May 2016
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2016] 5 JIEC 1606
• Docket Number: TE109/2015,CASE NOS. UD260/2015
• Date: 16 May 2016

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NOS. UD260/2015

TE109/2015

CLAIMS OF

Rimvydas Butkys

claimant

and

Coogan Meats Limited

respondent

Representation:

Claimant: Mr Jadel Naidoo BL instructed by FH O'Reilly & Company Solicitors, The Red Church, North Circular Road, Phibsboro, Dublin 7

Respondent: Ms Caoimhe O'Rourke BL instructed by Rennick Solicitors, Main Street, Dunboyne, Co. Meath

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007

TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACT 1994

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Mr D. MacCarthy SC

Members: Mr F. Cunneen

Mr M. O'Reilly

heard this claim at Dublin on 16 ^th May 2016

1 The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

2 The fact of dismissal was in dispute.

3 The respondent in this case is a meat processor. The claimant started working for the father of the managing director of the respondent business in about November 2009. In August 2010, without a break in his service, he went to work in the slaughterhouse.

4 On 14 November 2014 a serious incident occurred on the respondent's premises. The lid covering the blood tank was removed and as a result a driver delivering pigs was endangered and 3 pigs fell into the tank and drowned. The managing director questioned the 7 men working on the slaughter line, including the claimant, to discover who was responsible for removing the lid. They all said that they didn't know.

5 The managing director then informed the 7 men that if no one accepted responsibility he would deduct the cost of the lost pigs from their wages. No one came forward. On the following Friday, €50 was deducted from the wages of each of the 7 employees.

6 The claimant maintained that the incident occurred before he arrived at work. He was not present at any meeting to discuss the incident. On 24 November 2014 the claimant went to the office to collect his wages. His money was €50 short. He was annoyed but did say anything to the women in the office because his English is poor and he knew that everything is recorded on CCTV. TC was in the office. As he was leaving NA informed him that the managing director DC had decided to fire him and that he should call to the office the following week and collect his p.45. His last day a work was 25 November 2014. DC was at work that day but the claimant did not speak to him. In fact he avoided him.

7 On the following Monday he did nothing he was waiting for a phone call. He got his p.45 on...