Patton v Carroll

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 22 June 2004
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] 6 JIEC 2203
• Date: 22 June 2004
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Patton v Carroll

Representation:

Appellant(s):

In Person

Respondent(s):

In Person

Abstract:

EAT - Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Constructive dismissal - Difficulties between employees - Whether employee constructively dismissed - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD633/2003

APPEAL(S) OF:

Joe & Breege Patton T/A Polly Hops, 32 Bettyglen

Howth, Raheny, Dublin 5

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

Pauline Carroll, 265 Balrothery Estate, Tallaght,

Dublin

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Mr. D. Mac Carthy S C

Members:

Mr. C. Ormond

Ms R. McArdle

heard this appeal at Dublin on 9th February 2004

Facts The employer appealed against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The employee worked in the employer's pub/ restaurant as a second chef. A new head chef was hired and the claimant had difficulties with the new chef. The claimant alleged that the mood in the kitchen was generally very unpleasant and there were lots of belittling remarks from the head chef. The employee gave notice that she was leaving.

Held in finding that the employee's claim failed and overturning the decision of the Rights Commissioner that the employee had not discharged the onus of proof that she was unfairly dismissed, constructively or otherwise.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows: -

1 This claim came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal by an employer against the recommendation of a Rights Commissioner Ret UD11808/02/GF

2 For the purposes of this determination the employer will be referred to as “the appellant” and the employeewill be referred to as “the respondent"

Respondent's case

3 In her evidence the respondent told the Tribunal that she worked in the appellant's pub/restaurant for four years as a second chef. Her duties included preparing the carvery, a la carte and bar menu.

4 She also did some of the ordering. In June 2002 the head chef left and a month later a new head chef was hired. Within a week she was put washing up, frying chips and making desserts. She was told tat the new head chef would be preparing all of the food for the carvery the day before and she would only have to heat it up the next day. The head chef then hired a new second chef. The respondent only worked on the starter section after that. These duties are normally that of a commi chef. Any nights the respondent worked with the head chef or the new second chef she was left with only chips or desserts to cook.

5 The-respondent was never employed to the same level of competence as she had been previously.

6 On the first Monday in September 2002 the respondent asked for a meeting to discuss the difficulties. Present at the meeting was the respondent the new head chef, a chef who has been with the employer for...