Djamil Kenouche v Four Star Pizza

JurisdictionIreland
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
Judgment Date01 Apr 2009
Judgment citation (vLex)[2009] 4 JIEC 0102

Employment Appeals Tribunal

Djamil Kenouche (claimant) v Four Star Pizza (respondent)

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair Dismissal - Constructive dismissal - Redundancy - Fair procedures - Whether claimant resigned - Whether claimant constructively dismissed - Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2003 - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2001 - Minimum Notice and Terms Of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2001.

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM(S) OF:

CASE NO.

Djamil Kenouche, Apt 9, 4 Camden Place, Cork

RP833/2008

UD962/2008

MN903/2008

against

4 Star Pizza(Four Star Pizza), 7 Washington Street, Cork

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mr E. Murray

Members:

Mr D. Hegarty

Mr D. McEvoy

heard this claim at Cork on 1st April 2009

Facts The claimant gave evidence that he had been working as the assistant manager with the respondent. He was due to have a meeting with the operations manager but owing to difficulties with a printer he had been unable to print the necessary reports for the meeting. At the meeting the operations manager had shouted at him and was abusive towards him. This was the culmination of a number of issues which he indicated created a situation whereby he could not continue to work for the respondent. Other issues had arisen relating to inconsistency in relation to the payment of bonus and the working of excessive hours in respect of which he was not paid overtime. On behalf of the respondent the operations manager gave evidence that at the meeting in question she had felt that the claimant was very agitated before the meeting and when she had expressed her disappointment that the reports were not available he had become more agitated and abusive to her and had walked out of the meeting. The exchanges had upset her to the extent that she told one of her colleagues to lock the premises as she did not want the claimant to come back into the premises in his agitated state. The claimant would have been welcomed back to his job if he had indicated that he wished to come back and that she would have expected an apology for the words that he had used to her at the meeting.

Held by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in rejecting the claim. In order for an employee to meet the criteria...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT