Sharos v Fluid Controls (Ireland) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 November 2005
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2005] 11 JIEC 0502
• Date: 05 November 2005
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Sharos v Fluid Controls (Ireland) Ltd

Abstract:

Employment law - Constructive dismissal - Whether the conduct of the respondent rendered the claimant's employment intolerable - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:	CASE NO.
Philip Sharos, Toome, Lettermacaward, Co. Donegal	UD824/2004

against

Fluid Controls (Ireland) Limited, Roshine Road, Killybegs, Co. Donegal

under

UNFAIR DISWSSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal (Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Ms C. Egan B L
Members:	Mr. D. Morrison
	Mr G. Hunter

heard this claim at Letterkenny on 23rd June and 9th September 2005

Facts The claimant stated that following an incident whereby the proprietor of the respondent company directed bad language at him, he vacated the premises. As a result of that incident the claimant felt that his employment was at an end and he requested his P45. The proprietor offered him his job back but the claimant declined the offer. The proprietor stated in evidence that he wrote to the claimant a few days after the incident advising him that he was not dismissed and that his position was still available.

Held by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim: That the claimant failed to prove that the conduct of the respondent made it impossible for him to return to work after the situation was clarified by way of a letter from the proprietor. The claimant did not establish substantial grounds to show that a dismissal took place.

1 The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

Claimant's Case

2 The claimant was employed as a machinist with the respondent since late 1999. His direct evidence focussed on events on 8 July 2004 and the following days. That morning the witness sought and received some assistance from the proprietor of the respondent company in relation to the operation of a particular machine. The machine continued to cause problems throughout that morning and into the afternoon. The proprietor expressed his annoyance at the claimant and at how the machine did not operate. However, by around midday the machine's malfunctions appeared at an end and some time later the proprietor instructed the claimant to undertake another nearby task. The witness advised the proprietor not to allow the machine's scale and measuring system go beyond a certain point as that could result in damage to its workings.

3 When the claimant returned from his break at 1.30pm, the machine required additional attention to enable it to recommence its movements. In working on his other assigned task, the witness checked from time to time on the original machine. At one stage, he was called away from his workstation and when he returned noticed that the measuring dial on that machine had passed its safe maximum point. When be asked the proprietor to halt operations the claimant received a negative reaction from its operator. The proprietor told him in no uncertain terms what to do with himself. Due to the language used by the proprietor, together with its tone and volume, the claimant felt it best to vacate the premises. Among other comments of a similar nature, the proprietor told him to “get the fuck...