Structured Finance Management (Ireland) Ltd (Represented by Mr Tom Mallon B.L. Instructed by McDowell Purcell Solicitors) v Vadym Kalinin

 
FREE EXCERPT

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

UD/16/110

DETERMINATION NO.UDD181

ADJ-00000155-A CA-00000221-001/OM

PARTIES:
Structured Finance Management (Ireland) Limited (Represented by Mr Tom Mallon B.L. Instructed by McDowell Purcell Solicitors)
and
Vadym Kalinin
SUBJECT:
1

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00000155-A CA-00000221-001/OM.

BACKGROUND:
2

2. The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 6 October 2016. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 December 2017. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:
3

This is an appeal by Mr Vadym Kalinin (the Complainant) against a decision of the Adjudication Officer ref ADJ-00000155-A CA-00000221-001/OM, in which he decided that Structured Finance Management (Ireland) Limited (the Respondent) did not unfairly dismiss the Complainant from his employment.

4

The decision was issued on 26 August 2016. The appeal was presented to the Court on 6 October 2016.

5

The case was the subject of a number of case management hearings over the course of 2017. The substantive matter finally came on for hearing before the Court on 14 December 2017.

6

The Complainant worked for the Respondent for a period of seven years. In and around 2013 the Complainant raised a number of complaints with the respondent regarding his treatment in the Company. The Company also raised a number of performance related issues with the Complainant.

7

Both sides exchanged a significant volume of correspondence regarding those matters and numerous meetings between local management and the Complainant took place over subsequent years.

8

Finally in March 2015 the Respondent invoked disciplinary action against the Complainant. This gave rise to a detailed procedure that was a model of good practice. At the end of that process Mr Jonathan Hanly a Director of the Company decided to issue the Complainant with a final written warning arising out of what it considered his unacceptable behaviour in the performance of his duties at work.

9

The Complainant appealed against that decision to Mr Robert Berry, Chief Executive, who was based in London and who travelled to hear the appeal. At the end of that process Mr Berry decided to uphold the sanction issued by Mr Hanly.

10

Outside of the disciplinary process Mr Berry held a further meeting with the Complainant on 26 May 2015 at which he invited him to take part in mediation in an effort to resolve the workplace issues. The Complainant refused to engage in such a process. Mr Berry then decided that mutual trust and confidence no longer existed between the Complainant and the Respondent and that the employment relationship had broken down irretrievably. He then terminated the Complainant's employment with effect from 26 May 2015.

11

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act states

12

6.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

13

The fact of dismissal in this case is not in dispute between the parties. Accordingly the dismissal of the Complainant...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL