DHL Express (Ireland) Ltd (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation) v Rachel Hickey (Represented by Dave Murphy)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 2020 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2020] 2 JIEC 1408 |
| Docket Number | FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.UDD2012 ADJ-00014521 CA-00018890-001 |
| Date | 14 February 2020 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Court | Labour Court (Ireland) |
FULL RECOMMENDATION
UD/19/132
DETERMINATION NO.UDD2012
ADJ-00014521 CA-00018890-001
Labour Court
Chairman: Mr Geraghty
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Treacy
SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00014521.
2. The Complainant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 19 June 2019 in accordance with Section 8 A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 5 February 2020. The following is the Determination of the Court.
This is an appeal by Ms. Hickey, (‘the Complainant’), against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer, (‘AO’), that she had not been dismissed unfairly by DHL, (‘the Respondent’), contrary to her rights under the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977 to 2015, (‘the Acts’).
The Complainant is an agency worker. From September 2010 she was placed with the Respondent. She went on sick leave in May 2014. She sought to return to work on a number of subsequent occasions.
On 6 November 2017, she wrote to the agency, QED Contracts Agency Ltd., to say that ‘I must now conclude that I cannot return to work in DHL on this Monday. I must also conclude that I have been dismissed from the position I was recruited for in 2010, i.e. working in DHL….’
The Court was advised that there were personal injury proceedings in the High Court involving the parties. This was raised with the Complainant's representative in order that the Court could be satisfied that it was not being asked to make a Determination under the Acts on facts that are the same as those which had given rise to proceedings in the High Court. The Complainant's representative stated that the High Court proceedings had been instigated prior to the alleged dismissal and that, while information regarding relations between the parties in the period from September 2010 to 23 October 2017 was set out in the parties' submissions, this constituted no more than background information and the basis on which it was being argued that there had been an unfair dismissal was the interactions between the Complainant and the agency, QED Contracts Ltd., in the period from 23 October 2017 up to 6 November 2017. The Court accepted this recognition by the Complainant that matters prior to 23 October 2017 could not be determinative and agreed to hear the case on that basis. Some background information that relates to the period prior to these dates is not included in this Determination.
Summary of Complainant's arguments
Having made a number of attempts to return to work between May 2014 and October 2017, the Complainant met with the agency on 13 October 2017 regarding a return to work. A subsequent planned meeting was cancelled by the agency and there followed a series of e-mails between the parties.
By e-mail to the agency on 21 October 2017, the Complainant made clear her wish to return to her job in DHL and noted that she had supplied a fit to return to work letter. On 22 October 2017 she told the agency that she would meet with them if her suspension was lifted and she was to be allowed to return to work. She stated that if the agency was unable or unwilling to do this then she saw it as quite simple and noted that, ‘I have been dismissed’. The replies from the agency referred to meeting to assess availability and matching clients' needs rather than the return to work of the Complainant in the Respondent company.
This correspondence culminated with an...
To continue reading
Request your trial