Radvilas Ziurnia v Abrecababra

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 May 2007
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2007] 5 JIEC 2404
• Date: 24 May 2007
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Radvilas Ziurnia (claimant) v Abrecababra (respondent)

Abstract:

Employment - Termination - Minimum notice - Holiday pay - Whether claimant entitled to compensation for holiday pay and payment in lieu of notice - Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIMS OF:	CASE NO.
Radvilas Ziurnia, 16 White Oaks, Sarsfield Road, Wilton, Cork	WT98/2006 MN178/2006

against

Abracebabra, Unit 9, High Street, Wilton, Cork

Guilder Limited, T/A “Abracebabra”, Unit 9, High Street, Wilton, Cork

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Ms. K.T. O'Mahony B.L.
Members:	Mr G. Phelan
	Ms H. Kelleher

heard this claim at Cork on 24th May 2007

Facts the claimant's employment was terminated by the respondent. He got three weeks holiday but was only paid for two of them.

Held by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in awarding the claimant €298.35 under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and €298.35 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001 that under the provisions of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts an employee with over 13 weeks service with an employer was entitled to one weeks notice or payment in lieu of notice unless he was dismissed for misconduct. The claimant failed to discharge the onus of showing that the dismissal was for misconduct.

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Claimant's case:

1 The claimant worked for the respondent from 30th September 2004 to 20th September 2005.

2 The claimant worked the late shift on 19th September 2005. He came in to his place of work the next morning, 20th September 2005, because the manager had requested to meet him. He had not been told why the manager wished to meet him. When he met the manager she told him, “You're finished”. The claimant understood this to mean that he was not to come back to work anymore. While he had earlier been rostered to work on 21st September he did not show for work because he understood that his employment with the respondent had been terminated as and from the morning of 20th September. His sister-in-law, who also worked for the respondent, and with whom he shares accommodation, delivered the respondent's...