Fahy v Denis Kinane Motors Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 March 2016
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2016] 3 JIEC 2102
• Docket Number: MN777/2014,UD1681/2014
• Date: 21 March 2016
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. UD1681/2014

MN777/2014

CLAIM(S) OF:

Edward Fahy

claimant

and

Denis Kinane Motors Limited T/A Denis Kinane Honda

respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Ms. K.T. O'Mahony B.L.

Members: Mr. J. Hennessy

Ms. S. Kelly

heard this claim at Thurles on 21st March 2016

Summary of evidence:

1 The claim before the Tribunal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts was one of constructive dismissal. It therefore fell to the claimant to make his case.

2 The claimant, a mechanic, commenced his employment with the respondent as an apprentice on 8 December 2007 and on the completion of his apprenticeship, continued in the employment until the termination of his employment on 22 August 2014.

3 The claimant's position was that it was hard to satisfy the owner (MD) of the respondent company and he found it difficult to work for him. MD's position was that while the claimant's work performance was generally fine he needed careful watching. On occasion, he had cause to speak to the claimant but he did not issue him with any formal warnings.

4 On Wednesday 20^{August 2014, when the claimant was in the process of replacing a bulb it accidentally fell into the headlamp. When his attempts to retrieve it using a magnet failed he had to remove the car bumper to retrieve the bulb. It was alleged by the claimant that when MD discovered this he repeatedly told him that he was making the same mistakes, over and over again and that he was a "waste of space". While doing this work MD was standing over the claimant and he became so stressed and upset that he could not "take it anymore" and decided to leave the employment. On his way out he told a work colleague (WC) that he could not take any more and was leaving. MD denied telling the claimant he was a waste of space but accepted that he had "given out" to him as there had been no need to change the bulb in the first place.}

5 The claimant subsequently received a telephone call from MD asking him to sign a statement that he was leaving the employment, to return his overalls and a voltage meter (the meter) that MD had alleged he had stolen from him. The claimant told MD that he had not stolen the meter and he decided to return to the workplace that day to clear up the issues. Voltage meters are used for checking amps on cars

6 It was MD's evidence...