Pierce v Rocheur Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
Judgment Date29 Apr 2008
Judgment citation (vLex)[2008] 4 JIEC 2902

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Pierce (claimant) v Rocheur Ltd (respondent)

Representation:

Claimant(s):

The claimant in person

Respondent(s):

Mr. Niall Beirne BL instructed by Martin E Marren, Solicitors, 10 Northumberland Road, Dublin 4

Abstract:

Employment - Unfair dismissal - Whether the claimant's dismissal for underperformance was fair - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD 1000/2007

CLAIM(S) OF:

Robert Pierce, 4a Deanstown Park, Finglas West, Dublin 11

Against

Rocheur limited, South Quay, Arklow, Co. Wicklow

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mr D. Cagney BL

Members:

Mr. R. Prole

Mr G. Lamon

heard this claim at Dublin on 5th February 2008 and 29th April 2008

Facts The Managing Director of the respondent company gave evidence that the claimant took up employment with the respondent in early 2006, having previously been a customer of the respondent's small wholesale confectionary company. In late 2006 MD became concerned about the claimant's performance and advised him of such by way of letter. MD again spoke to the claimant regarding his performance in March 2007 and in May 2007 and advised him that underperformance could not be sustained. Subsequently, the claimant was dismissed at the end of July 2007. The claimant gave evidence that he was not offered enough time, assistance or help by the respondent. He stated that when another employee joined the company, forty per cent of his business was taken from him and he was not given time to develop the area. The claimant never disagreed with the targets set by the respondent.

Held by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim: That the targets set by the respondent for the claimant were accepted by the claimant and were not contested by him. The claimant was made aware that failure to reach those targets would have implications for his continual employment with the company. The claimant received a written warning from the respondent on 24 may 2007 and his dismissal was not unfair.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Background
1

Counsel for the respondent outlined to the Tribunal that the respondent is a small wholesale confectionery company. The claimant had been a customer and he had his own business for a number of years. In 2006 the claimant asked to join the...

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