Mulligan v Dunnes Stores Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 June 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 6 JIEC 1601
• Date: 16 June 2003
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Mulligan v Dunnes Stores Ltd

Abstract:

Employment law - EAT - Poor time keeping - Rostered work times - Altered roster - New time unsuitable for employee - Absence from work - Meeting - Dismissal - Whether dismissal unfair - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 - 2001 - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 - 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO

UD150/2002, MN270/2002

CLAIM OF:.

Brenda Mulligan, 50 Tulip Court, Darndale, Dublin 17

against

Dunnes Stores Ltd (Northside), Northside Shopping Centre, Coolock, Dublin 5 under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001 UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mr. T. Halpin

Members:

Mr. B. Kealy

Mr T. Perkins

heard this claim at Dublin on 23rd July 2002

and 11th April 2003

Facts The respondent claimed that the claimant had a poor attendance record, her manner towards customers and colleagues was bad and overall her work performance was poor. She worked from 7:30 – 4:00 pm. On one occasion, the respondent altered the roster to a late shift on a Friday which caused babysitting difficulties with the claimant and she raised this with her superior prior to the new roster coming into effect. This was to no effect and on the Friday in question the claimant phoned in sick. The following day she was called to a meeting and told she could a representative with her. The claimant explained why she took the Friday off but after the meeting she was dismissed.

Held The respondent failed to follow acceptable and reasonable procedures in dismissing the claimant. They found the claimant had contributed to her dismissal and was awarded EUR 8,726 compensation.

1 The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

Respondent's Case

2 The claimant's immediate supervisor at the respondent company outlined the work problems she encountered with the claimant. These included the claimant's poor attendance record, her manner towards colleagues and customers, and an unsatisfactory overall performance in the discharge of her duties. A particular and recurring problem was the number of times the claimant left her work place early. The witness gave several examples when this occurred. On 8 December 2000 she met the claimant and impressed upon her that her behaviour was not acceptable. The claimant acknowledged an improvement was required and for some time subsequent to that meeting the claimant's performance “drastically improved”

3 Further instances of the claimant's early departure from work were recorded in May and June 2001 and this resulted in another meeting involving these two individuals on 11 June. The witness warned the claimant on that occasion that disciplinary procedures would be used if her time keeping did not...