Case Number: UDD1733. Labour Court

• Judgment Date: 01 July 2017
• Year: 2017
• Docket Number: UDD1733
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION UD/16/98 DETERMINATIONNO.UDD1733 ADJ-00001058 CA-00001447-001 ; SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 ; PARTIES : SPARROW INSURANCES LIMITED; (REPRESENTED BY MR JOHN CURRAN, B.L., INSTRUCTED BY ROLLESTONS, SOLICITORS); - AND -; KAROL BENNETT GEE; (REPRESENTED BY MR ALAN DODD, B.L., INSTRUCTED BY THOMAS W. ENRIGHT, SOLICITORS); DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh; Employer Member: Mr Murphy; Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No; ADJ-00001058.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2015 on 16 September 2016. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 February 2017. The following is the Determination of the Court:-


DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal on behalf of Sparrow Insurances Limited (“the Respondent”) against the decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00001058) dated 10 August 2016. The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 16 September 2016. The Court heard the appeal in Portlaoise on 21 February 2017. At first instance, the Adjudication Officer upheld Ms Bennet Gee’s (“the Complainant”) complaint of constructive unfair dismissal and awarded her compensation of €12,000.00.

Complainant’s Submission

The Complainant was employed as Team Leader in the Respondent insurance broker’s Commercial Department. She resigned her employment by letter dated 8 July 2015. She had been due to attend a disciplinary meeting, accompanied by her legal advisors, on the previous day – 7 July 2015. However, it transpired that the disciplinary meeting was to be conducted by Ms Eilish Sparrow, a Director of the Respondent. The Complainant took exception to Ms Sparrow conducting the disciplinary hearing on the bases that Ms Sparrow had also instigated the initial complaint against the Complainant, suspended the Complainant (on full pay), had investigated the complaint and was now seeking to be the sole decision-maker in relation to the complaint.

In her letter of resignation the Complainant framed her concerns in this regard as follows:

• “3. Eilish Sparrow insisted that she was to sit as the sole member of the disciplinary panel. In advance of the disciplinary hearing on the 7^thof July, 2015 it became clear that the employer was providing no evidence other than the report of the 20^thof May, 2015. Any additional information required to substantiate the allegations in the hearing was to be provided by Eilish Sparrow. Eilish Sparrow instigated, investigated, sought to substantiate the complaint and now seeks to be the sole adjudicator in the disciplinary hearing. This is utterly unfair and in breach of natural justice. The process has a preordained determination.

  4. By letter dated the 7^thJuly, 2015 Eilish Sparrow, on behalf of the employer, proposed to seek my involvement in disciplinary hearings which remain fundamentally unfair, in breach of natural justice and in breach of fundamental terms of my contract of employment, express and implied. The requirement of trust and confidence which must be in place in such a relationship has been breached by the actions of the employer.”

The Complainant’s letter of resignation refers also to the following additional reasons that she believed left her with no choice but to resign her employment: her suspension on 14 May 2015 “with immediate effect without any explanation” (paragraph 1); and her belief that “the charges against [her] are contrived”. The Complainant re-iterated each of the above grounds justifying her decision to resign in her Statement of Claim submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission. She gave detailed evidence to the Court in the course of the hearing in relation to her employment history with the Respondent and in relation to the events, commencing with her paid suspension on 14 May 2015, that culminated in her decision to resign her employment on 8 July 2015. It is not necessary to recite that evidence in detail having regard to the Court’s reasoning, as set out below, for its decision in this case.

Counsel for the Complainant made a detailed legal submission in which he opened a number of authorities to the Court including:Mehigan v Dyflin...