Croke v Oran Pre-cast Slab Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 November 2007
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2007] 11 JIEC 2901
• Date: 29 November 2007
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Croke (claimant) v Oran Pre-cast Slab Ltd (respondent)

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Depression and stress - Continued stress related illness - Whether employer made genuine effort to assist claimant with increasing levels of stress - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001- Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD967/2006

MN631 /2006

CLAIMS OF: Aiden Croke, Annagh, Moycullen, Co. Galway

against

Oran Pre-Cast Slab Limited, Deerpark Industrial Estate,

Oranmore, Co. Galway

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Mr. J. Fahy B.L.
Members:	Mr. B. O'Carroll
	Ms. H. Henry

heard this appeal at Galway on 29 November 2007

Facts The claimant was employed in the respondent's concrete slab production facility. At the outset, the respondent conceded that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed and the Tribunal was required to determine loss. The claimant suffered from a depressive illness and the respondent's position was that since the claimant had not been available for work he could have no loss attributable to the dismissal. The claimant's position was that the claimant's treatment by the respondent during his employment had contributed to the claimant's condition.

Held by the Tribunal that the claimant was entitled to Eur35,000 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001 and Eur3,690.38 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001. The claimant made the respondent aware of the claimant's depressive illness and the respondent placed more responsibility on the claimant. The respondent's steps fell short of a genuine effort to assist the claimant with the increasing levels of stress that resulted from increased demands on him.

1 The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

2 The claimant was employed in the respondent's concrete slab production facility from the spring of 2001. Initially the claimant was an operative but in 2003 was promoted to the position of foreman, a position in which he succeeded his brother who had also been promoted. At the outset the respondent conceded that claimant had been unfairly dismissed, the Tribunal was required to determine the loss in this case.

3 The respondent's position is that, since...