The Estate of Maureen Scanlon (Deceased) of Scanlon's Jewellers (Represented by Tom Mallon B.L., Instructed by George v Maloney & Company, Solicitors) v Kathleen Quinn

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 12 November 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 11 JIEC 1209
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION,ADJ-00004743 CA-00006636-001,DETERMINATION NO.UDD1859
• Date: 12 November 2018

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

UD/18/54

DETERMINATION NO.UDD1859

ADJ-00004743 CA-00006636-001

PARTIES:

The Estate of Maureen Scanlon (Deceased) of Scanlon's Jewellers (Represented by Tom Mallon B.L., Instructed by George V Maloney & Co, Solicitors)

and

Kathleen Quinn

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015

SUBJECT:

1 1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no: ADJ-00004743.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 29 March 2018 in accordance with Section 8(A) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 October 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

3 This is an appeal brought on behalf of the Estate of Maureen Scanlon (Deceased) (‘the Respondent’) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00004743/CA-00006636-001, dated 21 February 2018) under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer decided that the claim under the Act was well-founded and awarded Ms Kathleen Quinn (‘the Complainant’) compensation of €10,000.00. The Complainant gave evidence on her own behalf. Mr Jimmy Scanlon (a son of the late Mrs Maureen Scanlon) and Mr Sean Coyle (an employee in Scanlon's Jewellers, the business run by the late Mrs Scanlon as a sole trader) gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent.

Jurisdictional Issue

4 A jurisdictional issue (which had been canvassed before the Adjudication Officer and determined by her in the Complainant's favour) falls to be determined by the Court afresh on the appeal. The Respondent submits that the Complainant had insufficient continuous service with the Respondent to entitle her to pursue her claim under the Act. The Respondent's position is that the Complainant's employment commenced on 12 December 2014 and was terminated by telephone on 17 October 2015. Thus – allowing for one week's statutory minimum notice – the relevant date of dismissal, in the Respondent's submission, is 24 October 2015. The P45 issued to the Complainant states her date of cessation to have been 29 October 2015.

5 Mr Jimmy Scanlon's evidence was that a named person (DB) who had been working on a part-time basis in his later mother's jewellery shop as a sales assistant gave him two weeks' notice in or around the end of November 2014 of her intention to leave her employment. Ultimately, DB worked until 5...