Maurice Denis Horgan v Hastie Insulation Ireland Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 May 2007
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2007] 5 JIEC 2103
• Date: 21 May 2007
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Maurice Denis Horgan (claimant) v Hastie Insulation Ireland Ltd (respondent)

Representation:

Claimant

Mr Kieran Hughes, B.L., instructed by Ms. Maureen Kelleher, Don Ryan & Co., Solicitors, 9 Westbourne Place, Cobh, Co. Cork

Respondent

Mr Conor O'Connell, Construction Industry Federation, Construction House, 4 Eastgate Avenue, Little Island, Cork

Abstract:

Employment law - Constructive dismissal - Whether the claimant was entitled to terminate his contract of employment or whether it was reasonable for him to do so having regard to the fact that he was temporarily laid off from the site he normally worked on - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:	CASE NO.
Maurice Denis Horgan, 5 Harbour View, Cobh, Co. Cork	UD289/2006

Against

Hastie Insulation Ireland Limited, Unit 9,Whitescross, Julianstown, Co. Meath

Under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Ms. K.T. O'Mahony B.L.
Members:	Mr G. Phelan Ms H. Kelleher

heard this claim at Cork on 21 st May 2007

Facts The claimant gave evidence that he was temporarily laid off by the respondent and that one employee (SN), who worked under him as the contracts foreman on the site was kept on in his place. Subsequently, the claimant contacted the respondent and he was offered a post in Clare, which he declined. The claimant stated that he wanted his job back but felt he had no option to resign and consequently tendered his resignation. The claimant accepted that it was a term of his contract of employment that he travel to work at other locations. The respondent's former General Manager gave evidence of a very significant downturn in work on the Cork site around the time the claimant was laid off. He also provided details in relation to the criteria for selecting employees for lay-off from the company. The witness stated that SN was kept on because he had thirty years' service, he was willing to travel and was one of the best workers.

Held by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim: That a genuine lay-off situation existed and having regard to the criteria outlined, the respondent's decision to select the claimant for lay-off rather than the site foreman was reasonable. It was a condition of the claimant's contract of employment that he would travel to different sites throughout Ireland, yet...