Molloy v Cecelia Stores Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 11 September 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 9 JIEC 1102
• Date: 11 September 2003
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Molloy v Cecelia Stores Ltd.

Abstract:

Employment law - EAT - Unfair dismissal - Fair procedures - Whether substantial reason justifying dismissal - Whether respondent adhered to fair procedures - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD50/2003

CLAIM(S) OF:

Amanda Molloy, 6 Rochford Close, Bakers Walk, Kilcock, Co. Kildare.

against

Martin Hanbury and Cecelia Stores Ltd, 40 Arran Quay, Dublin 7.

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. B. Aylward

Dr. C. O'Connor

heard this claim at Dublin on 3rd July 2003

Facts The claimant was appointed to the position of area manager over three of the respondent's stores. In cross-examination, the director of the respondent stated that he dismissed the claimant because she had problems in sales, margins and people skills. The respondent had raised no issues with the claimant before her dismissal. The claimant had been given no warnings.

Held in finding that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed that the respondent had failed to discharge the onus of proof on it to show that there was a substantial or any sufficient reason to justify the claimant's dismissal. An employer could not justify a dismissal by matters that had come to his attention after the dismissal. The respondent further failed to adhere to fair procedures when dismissing the claimant. The claimant was awarded the sum of 27,5000 compensation.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

1 Dismissal as a fact was not in dispute in this case.

Respondent's case

2 A director of the respondent told the Tribunal that the respondent owned a group of eight convenience stores (five of which were in the city centre) and has approximately 89 employees. The claimant commenced employment with the respondent as a trainee manager, four weeks later she was appointed manager of one of the respondent's store and her performance there was good. In July 2001 she was promoted to the position of area manager over three of the respondent's stores.

3 The witness was made aware that the claimant was not treating all managers in a similar manner. Certain managers would get lists of work to do and others would not. He said that work standards/practices were different throughout the three stores under her control. Pricing in one store had to be increased when the claimant left. Profits/turn-over dropped (by approximately 2%) in one of his stores for which the claimant was responsible and profit in all stores increased when she left. In June 2002 employee C was to cover as manager in one of the respondent's...