Cunningham v Brown & Gillmore

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 11 October 1998
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1998] 10 JIEC 1101
• Date: 11 October 1998
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

Cunningham v Brown & Gillmore

Representation:

Claimant(s): Mr Paul Bell. SIPTU Head Office, Liberty Hall Dublin 1.

Respondent(s): Mr. Brendan Power, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2.

Abstract:

Dismissal - Preliminary issue - Employee or contract for service - Jurisdiction - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973– 1991 - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 - 1993

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO:

UD49 /98 MN1111/98

CLAIM(S) OF:

Lorraine Cunningham, Sunview, Duleek, Co. Meath

against

Brown & Gillmer Ltd, P.O. Box 3154, The Lodge,

Florence House, 199 Strand Road, Merrion, Dublin 4

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 1993

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 1991

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Members

Mr P Bracken

Ms K. Warnock

heard this claim at Drogheda on 11th September, 1998.

A preliminary issue arose at the outset to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application. Claimant stated she commenced employment in ad administrative position in 1993. Respondent claimed that she was never an employee of the respondent company but was engaged under a contract for service.

Tribunal determined that it had no jurisdiction to hear the application because: claimant did not have a contract of employment; she invoiced the respondent in respect of services provided; tax and PRSI were the claimant's responsibility; she could sub-contract her work and there were no pension, holiday or sick leave entitlements.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:—

Preliminary Issue

1 At the onset of the hearing, the Tribunal sought clarification from the claimant's representative as to the nature of the contractual relationship between the appellant and the named respondent.This was necessary in order to satisfy the Tribunal as to its jurisdiction in this matter.

2 It is the claimant's case that she began employment with the respondent company in October, 1993 in an administrative position and in that capacity provided a storage and distribution facility for the respondent company.

3 It was submitted by the respondent's representative that the claimant was not at any time an employee of the respondent and was in fact engaged under a contract for service. Consequently, it is the respondent's case that no claim arises under either the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 1993 or the...