McMahon v M.P.C. Holdings Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 April 1998
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1998] 4 JIEC 0101
• Date: 01 April 1998
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

McMahon v M.P.C. Holdings Ltd

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.UD10/98 MN13/98

CLAIM(S) OF:

Jennifer McMahon, 2 Brighton Terrace, Sandycove, Co Dublin

against

M.P.C. Holdings Ltd, Headford Road, Galway. under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 1991 UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 1993

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Ms. R. O'Connell

Members:

Mr C. Ormond

Mr. E. Erowne

heard this claim at Dublin on 1st April 1998

Abstract:

Abstract to follow

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

1 The claimant commenced employment with the Portview Hotel on 5 February 1996. The hotel was sold as a going concern to the present owners, M.PC. Holdings Ltd, in September 1996, therefore the claimants employment comes under the European Communities(safeguarding of Employees Rights on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 1980.

2 When the present owners assumed control of the hotel the claimant, was invited by management to re-apply for her existing position although this was superfluous under the terms of the European Communities (Safeguarding of Employees Rights on Transfer of Undertakings)Regulations 1980.

3 No terms and conditions of employment were proferred by the employer and no contract. of employment was executed, therefore, the contract. of employment continued under the existing terms and conditions.

4 The claimant gave evidence that she had no understanding that her employment would end at any particular date and further understood that it would continue throughout the proposed refurbishment of the hotel and thereafter.

5 When the claimant reported for work on 27 December 1997 she was told by the manager that she was no longer required as she was not suitable. She gave evidence that she understood that this referred to a previous occasion when she had refused, for personal reasons, to alter her working hours to a 7a.m. start rather than a 9a.m. start. No notice was given and no monies were paid in lieu of notice.

6 Throughout the claimants period or employment her work was adjudged to have been of a very high standard.

Determination:

7 Having considered carefully all the evidence presented to it by both parties, the Tribunal unanimously determines that the claimant. was unfairly dismissed.

8 The remedies of re-instatement or re-engagement are not considered by the Tribunal to be appropriate in the...