Citywide Leisure Ltd v Dobroikov

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 April 2004
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] 4 JIEC 2101
• Date: 21 April 2004
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Citywide Leisure Limited v Dobroikov

Abstract:

EAT - Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Whether dismissal took place - Whether dismissal unfair - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD8I2/2003

APPEAL OF:

Citywide Leisure Limited, T/A the Holiday Inn, 99–107 Pearse Street, Dublin 2

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

Borislav Dobroikov, 48 Amiens Square Apartments, Amiens Street, Dublin 1

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Ms. E. Daly B L
Members:	Mr M. Kennedy
	Mr S. Nolan

heard this appeal at Dublin on 21st April 2004

Facts The respondent worked as a porter. There was an altercation between the respondent and the duty manager in relation to the respondent's consumption of hotel bread. The duty manager alleged that the respondent struck him during the struggle. The respondent attended a meeting where he was asked to apologise to the manager. The respondent denied striking the manager and announced he was resigning. He stated that he felt his dignity was at stake in relation to an apology. The respondent was informed that his resignation would not be necessary as he was being dismissed.

Held by the EAT in finding that the respondent's dismissal was unfair and upholding the decision of the Rights Commissioner that no actual assault took place during the struggle. On balance a dismissal did take place and this dismissal was unfair.

1 The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

Appellant's/Employer's Case

2 A duty manager stated to the Tribunal the respondent's policy on bread consumption by employees of this hotel. Staff were allowed to have bread only with their breakfast and were specifically prohibited from this food at other meals. This policy was put in place for cost factors and the witness did not consider it unfair. The hotel had fifty staff and this staff could not help themselves to this resource as they wished. The claimant was one of several non-nationals on this staff. According to this manager the claimant was aware of this policy prior to an incident in the canteen on 4 December 2002.

3 A direct encounter between the claimant and the witness over the issue of bread consumption occurred on 25 November 2002. On that date the duty manager instructed the chef in the...