Natalija Krupska v Michael Curran PFP Ltd [Employment Appeals Tribunal]

JurisdictionIreland
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
Judgment Date24 Jan 2011
Judgment citation (vLex)[2011] 1 JIEC 2401

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Representation:

Claimant(s) : Mr. David Leonard BL instructed by Sinnott & Company, Solicitors, Belgrave House, 15 Belgrave Road, Rathmines, Dublin 6

Respondent(s) : Mr. Gerard Connolly, Matheson Ormsby Prentice, Solicitors, 70 Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Abuse behavior - Bullying - Anti-bullying procedure - Dismissal - Procedures - Dismissal in dispute - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 To 2007

CLAIM(S) OF:

CASE NO.

Natalija Krupska, 8 Rathaldron Court, Navan, Co. Meath - claimant

UD2294/2009 MN2124/2009

against

Michael Curran PFP Limited, Unit 15, Parkwest Enterprise Centre, Parkwest, Nangor Road, Dublin 12 - respondent

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mrs. M. Quinlan

Members:

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

Mr P. Trehy

heard this claim at Dublin on 24th January 2011

Facts The claimant stated her employers were father and son and she dealt with the son who was frequently in bad form. The respondent company supplied fire protection products to the construction industry. On 15th May 2009 the claimant found a work colleague upset because she had been ordered to file incorrect customer details on products supplied to them. Claimant raised this with the respondent and a heated discussion followed. The respondent shouted called the claimant stupid. The claimant said he told her to leave. She interpreted this as dismissal. The respondent said he told her to leave and calm down and did not dismiss her.

Held The respondent had not followed correct procedures in that the person who dismissed the claimant also heard her appeal. There was no contract of employment nor anti-bullying procedure. While the claimant contributed to her dismissal they awarded her €27,000.

Reporter: BD

Respondent€s Case
1

(MC) Jnr, director of the respondent company gave evidence that the company is a fire protection company. It supplies and installs fire protection products to the construction industry. The company charges specific rates for products supplied to customers and these rates change on an ongoing basis. On 15 May 2009 he had a discussion with an office employee, hereafter known as (M) about the recording of such rates and ensuring that the correct rates were being applied. This was an ordinary discussion, not a heated discussion and the claimant was present during...

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