Wool v Lennox

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 November 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 11 JIEC 0502
• Date: 05 November 2003
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Wool v Lennox

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - EAT - Resignation - Whether claimant resigned - Whether claimant dismissed - Whether substantial grounds to justify dismissal - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001 - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD830/2002 MN2363/2002

CLAIM(S) OF:

William Wool, 162 Silversprings Lawn, Tivoli, Cork.

against

Jackie Lennox Ltd, 137 Bandon Road, Cork,

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Ms. K. T. O'Mahony B.L.

Members:

Mr. P. O'Leary

Mr K. O'Connor

heard this claim at Cork on 2nd May 2003

Facts The claimant left work because he was not feeling well. The respondent contended that when he left the claimant stated “I can't take it anymore, I'm going away” and that he did not add the word “tonight”. The respondent concluded that the claimant had quit his job and his name was not put on the roster. When the respondent subsequently met the claimant she told him that he had walked out but offered the claimant a sum of money.

Held in finding the dismissal unfair and awarding the claimant 5,460 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001 and 4,988 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001 that the claimant did not resign. The words used by the claimant were ambiguous and should have been inquired into. The decision not to roster the claimant amounted to a dismissal. Since there were no substantial grounds to justify the dismissal it was unfair. However, the claimant had contributed to his dismissal.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

1 The fact of dismissal was in dispute in this case.

Claimant's Case:

2 The claimant commenced his employment with the respondent in 1976. Initially he worked on a part-time basis and later continued on a full-time basis from 1992/93. His duties included maintenance of equipment and looking after customers, staff and sometimes he was responsible for money. On 12th July 2002 he started work at 4.45pm (his normal starting time) but he was not feeling well either physically or mentally and he told the person whom the workers regard as their manager. He took his break from 7.00pm to 8.l5pm and what he ate disagreed with him. He returned from his break to let the other staff take their break from 9.15pm to 9.30pm. When they returned he had to go home because he was not well. He also told the member of staff, who would be taking over from him...