Murphy v NIPPA

JurisdictionIreland
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
Judgment Date11 Jul 2005
Judgment citation (vLex)[2005] 7 JIEC 1101

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Murphy v NIPPA

Abstract:

Employment law - EAT - Jurisdiction - Redundancy - Whether the respondent used fair procedures in dismissing the claimant - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:

CASE NO

Patricia Murphy, 9 Larkfield Avenue, Harolds Cross,

RP450/2004

Dublin 6w

UD833/2004

against

NIPPA, 6c Wildflower Way, Apollo Road, Belfast

BT126TA

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2003

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mr M. O'Connell B.L.

Members:

Mr P. Pierce

Mr C. Ryan

heard this claim at Dublin on 25th April 2005

Facts There was a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. The respondent argued that the claimant was employed by a Company registered in Northern Ireland and therefore was subject to Northern Ireland employment legislation. The claimant submitted that her job salary was negotiated in punts and that her headquarters were at her home in Dublin. The respondent gave evidence that it was required to make the claimant's post redundant due to funding difficulties. The claimant appealed the decision to make her redundant and two members of the appeal panel were party to the original decision to make her redundant.

Held by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant:

1. That the claimant's case was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

2. That the procedures used by the respondent to dismiss the claimant were flawed and accordingly the claimant was unfairly dismissed and was entitled to compensation in the sum of €6,162.00

1

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

Preliminary issue:
2

At the outset a preliminary issue was raised as to the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear this case. The respondent claimed tat since the claimant was employed by a company which was registered in Northern Ireland, (N.I.), paid P.A.Y.E. Income Tax and National Insurance in N.I., she was fully aware tat she was subject to N.I. employment legislation therefore the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. The respondent referred to the claimant's letter of appointment and the Statement of Main Terms and Conditions of Employment, (copies of which were presented to the Tribunal), wherein it stated that N.I. legislation applied. The Contract of Employment also referred to N.I. legislation and since...

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