McLoughlin v Cagney Contract Cleaning

JurisdictionIreland
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
Judgment Date30 Oct 2003
Judgment citation (vLex)[2003] 10 JIEC 3001

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: McLoughlin v Cagney Contract Cleaning

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Absenteeism - Whether level of absenteeism made it reasonable to dismiss - Whether breach in procedures - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD1298/2002

CLAIM OF:

James McLoughlin, 42 Dolphin Park, Rialto, Dublin 8

against

Cagney Contract Cleaning, Cagney Maintenance Services Limited, Unit 3, Palmerstown Business

Park, Palmerstown, Dublin 20

Cagney Maintenance Services Limited, Unit 3, Palmerstown Business Park, Palmerstown,

Dublin 20

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mr. T. Ryan

Members:

Mr. B. Aylward

Mr. S. Redmond

heard this claim at Dublin on 29th May 2003 and 16th July 2003

Facts The claimant had a pattern of unauthorised absences. He was sent a letter terminating his employment but following requests from the claimant this termination did not take place. However, the claimant's pattern of unauthorised absences continued. The respondent consulted with the cleaning services manager before dismissing the claimant. The reasons for the dismissal were outlined in a letter sent to the claimant. The claimant contended that he did not come and go to work as he pleased but had been absent because of illness.

Held in finding that the dismissal was fair that the claimant's unacceptably high level of absenteeism made it entirely reasonable for the respondents to sever the claimant's contract of employment. There was no significant breach in procedure by the respondent prior to the termination of the employment.

1

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

Respondent's Case
2

The managing director referred to a letter written by the cleaning services manager dated 6th June 2002. This letter terminated the claimant's employment with the respondent. Following subsequent requests from the claimant this termination did not take place at that time. However the claimant continued his pattern of unauthorised absences in October and November 2002 and as the notice of termination was never officially withdrawn it was decided to reactivate it in late November.

3

This reactivation was caused by the claimant's failure to report for work on 18th and 19th November 2002. This witness stated that the claimant phoned on Monday 18th November to say that he would be in the next day but failed to appear. Instead the claimant phoned again that day with the news that he was coming in the following day for work. The managing director consulted with the cleaning services manager before dismissing the claimant. The reasons for the dismissal were outlined in a letter sent to the claimant dated 19th November.

4

...

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