Doherty v Higgins & Keegan Retail Ltd

 
FREE EXCERPT

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. UD127/2015

CLAIM OF:
Margaret Doherty
and
Higgins & Keegan Retail Limited T/A Centra Enniscrone
Representation:

Claimant: Denis M Molloy, Solicitors, Bridge St, Ballina, Co Mayo

Respondent: Galvan Smyth McEnroe, Solicitors, 11/12 John St., Sligo

Background:
1

Dismissal was in dispute. The claimant was employed in the deli/shop of the respondent's supermarket. She was employed from August 2008 until September 2014. The respondent contended that she requested her P45 and left of her own accord.

Claimant's case:
2

MD told the Tribunal that she had her third child in February 2014 and was due to return to work in 19 th August 2014. She sent a text to D the store manager on 14 th July to remind him of her return date. She did not receive a reply so she sent another message on 4 th August.

3

On 8 th August she received a message asking her to ring the owner PK. She rang but got no reply so proceeded to text him. He replied to her (via text) to say he had "too many staff at the moment" but would "try to fit her in for a shift or two".

4

The claimant called to the store on three occasions over the next few weeks but was never put on the roster. Under cross examination she stated that 19hours would have been sufficient for her and she would gladly have accepted that. She acted reasonably at all times. She stated that somebody else was doing her job and she shouldn't have to fight to get her hours back.

Respondent's case:
5

PK gave evidence of receiving a text from the claimant and replying saying that he would try to fit her in for a shift or two but could not guarantee her five days. He said that September was the start of the quiet time of year in the supermarket and it is when hours begin to be cut back to try and retain staff. He told the Tribunal that a new shop had opened in the town that year, so trading had become difficult and it was a tough time financially. The claimant was a part time flexible employee as per her contract. He worked well with her but said she chose not to return to work. He did not dismiss her.

6

Under cross examination he said that a letter had been drafted for Social Welfare citing that no hours were available but that was done because the claimant had made her decision not to return. He was unaware of the P45 issuing but assumed that...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL