Stephen Mc Redmond v John Pettitt (Wexford) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 10 February 1998
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1998] 2 JIEC 1001
• Date: 10 February 1998
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

Stephen Mc Redmond v John Pettitt (Wexford) Ltd

Abstract:

Dismissal — Misconduct — Whether claimant had resigned — Whether claimant had intimidated another employee - Suspension — Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 1993 — Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 1991.

Employment Appeals Tribunal (Mrs M. Quinlan (chairman), Mr J. Power and Mr S. O'Donnell) Gorey UD665/97 MN1182/97, 10 February 1998

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD665/97 P1141182/97

CLAIMS OF:

Stephen Me Redmond, 10 Ramsfort Avenue, Corey, Co. Wexford

against

John Pettitt (Wexford) Ltd, Main Street, Corey, Co. Wexford & The Crescent Quay, Wexford

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 1991 UNFAIR DISMISSAIS ACTS, 1977 TO 1993

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Mrs N. Quinlan
Members:	Mr. J. Power
	Mr. S. O'Donnell

heard these claims at Corey on 21st November 1997

The claimant was employed as fruit and vegetable department manager in the respondents' company from May 1988 to June 1997. Part of his job was to ensure that the vegetables stocked were of the highest quality. As the weekend staff employed were part-timers this sometimes created difficulty for him. On 12 May 1997, the area manager reprimanded the claimant for not destroying a quantity of rotten fruit and vegetables on display. The respondent claimed that the claimant tendered his resignation orally and agreed to confirm this in writing. A replacement was immediately arranged but resigned unexpectedly. The respondent suspected that the claimant was involved. The claimant refused to confirm his resignation in writing so the respondent suspended him pending investigation. The claimant disputed that he tendered his resignation. He said that he had threatened to resign if management continued to blame him for staff problems. The respondent claimed that the claimant had solicited gifts from his suppliers in return for him stocking their products.

The staff manual prohibited this unless management approved it. The claimant denied that he had solicited gifts but accepted that he had on occasions received gifts and that this was the practice of the business. The respondent found his conduct was unacceptable and constituted gross misconduct. They required him to submit his resignation in writing and accused him of intimidating a member of staff. The claimant disputed...