O’Reilly v Brown Thomas

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 07 November 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 11 JIEC 0701
• Date: 07 November 2003
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: O'Reilly v Brown Thomas

Representation:

Claimant(s):

Marcus Dowling B.L instructed by Caitriona McCrohan, Beauchamps, Solicitors, Dollard House, Wellington Quay, Dublin 2

Respondent(s):

Mark Connaughton B.L. instructed by Kerry Hues, Matheson Ormsby Prentice, Solicitors, 30 Herbert Street, Dublin 2

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Right of appeal against dismissal - Whether claimant could have availed of appeal - Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993, s. 9

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD457/2003

MN1274/2003

CLAIM OF:

Brian O'Reilly, 22 Delaford Park, Knocklyon, Templeogue, Dublin 16

against

Brown Thomas & Co Limited, 88-95 Grafton Street, Dublin 2

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMIENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mr. D. MacCarthy S.C

Members:

Ms T. Leonard Mr D. Mahon

heard this claim at Dublin on 23rd October 2003

Facts The claimant was dismissed by the respondent because of missing gift vouchers. The claimant had not followed company procedures in relation to the missing vouchers and had tried to conceal their loss. A disciplinary meeting was held and after a second meeting the claimant was dismissed. The claimant stated that he was not told about his right to appeal against the dismissal but under cross-examination agreed that he had spoken to his union official about his right of appeal but had gone instead to a firm of solicitors.

Held by the Tribunal in disallowing the claim that there were substantial grounds for dismissal. The only conflict of evidence related to the whether the claimant was informed of his right of appeal. The claimant had given evidence that he could still have availed of an appeal against his dismissal and as a result it was not appropriate to consider s. 9 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Background

1 Dismissal was not in dispute in this case, it was agreed between the Dailies that employment

2 Commenced in August 2000, not May 2001 as stated in the form T1A.

Respondent's Case

3 The first witness for the respondent company is the Dublin Human Resources manager. The witness gave evidence of how on Monday 4 November 2002 she heard from the cash office manager of an incident which occurred on Wednesday 30 October 2002, as a...