Crawford v Donegal Meat Processors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 28 February 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 2 JIEC 2801
• Date: 28 February 2003
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Crawford v Donegal Meat Processors

Representation:

Claimant(s):

Ms Fidelma Carron, Siptu, Port Road, Letterkenny, Co

Donegal

Respondent(s)

Mr Chris O'Donovan, Ibec, South West Regional Office, 11/12

Mill Court, The Diamond, Donegal Town

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - EAT Sick leave - Whether unfair to punish employees for being off work on certified sick leave - Re-engagement - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD897/2002 MN2491/2002

CLAIM(S) OF:

Damien Crawford, Magheracloy, St. Johnston, Lifford, Co Donegal

against

Donegal Meat Processors, Drumnashear, Carrigans, Co

Donegal

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mr. P. O'Leary B L

Members:

Mr. D. Morrison

Ms. A. Moore

heard this claim at Letterkenny on 19th February 2003

Facts The claimant claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed. The respondent contended that the claimant had a poor attendance record which led to his dismissal. The respondent contended that the claimant had an excessive amount of certified and uncertified sick leave.

Held in finding by a majority that the claimant was unfairly dismissed that the respondent's procedures were arbitrary and unfair in that they punished an employee for being off on certified sick leave. The procedure took no account of the veracity of the sickness. However, the claimant had contributed to his dismissal by his uncertified sickness record and considering the parties' attitudes to the remedies under the legislation, the most appropriate remedy was re-engagement from three months prior to the date of the order.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Dismissal was not in dispute in this case

Respondent's case

1 The Tribunal heard evidence from the respondents Human Resources Manager. He is responsible for keeping attendance records of the company's employees. He told the Tribunal that the company has a policy of meeting employees for a counselling session on the occurrence of an absence through illness. The session gives the employee an opportunity to look at their attendance record and give feedback to the company. After such sessions disciplinary action may or may not be taken, depending on the individual case. The company also have a...