Wrights of Marino Manufacturing Company Ltd (Represented by Patrick F O Reilly & Company Solicitors) v Anna Gajewska (Represented by Hoban Boino Solicitors)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 January 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 1 JIEC 1901
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Docket Number: ADJ-00001590 CA-00002206-001,DETERMINATION NO.UDD183,FULL RECOMMENDATION
• Date: 19 January 2018

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

UD/17/33

DETERMINATION NO.UDD183

ADJ-00001590 CA-00002206-001

PARTIES:

Wrights of Marino Manufacturing Company Limited (Represented by Patrick F O Reilly & Company Solicitors)

and

Anna Gajewska (Represented by Hoban Boino Solicitors)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Hayes

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No.ADJ-00001590

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 8(A) of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th October, 2017. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

3 This is an appeal by Ms Anna Gajewska (the Complainant/Appellant) against the decision of the Adjudication Officer ref ADJ-00001590 in which he decided that the complaint of unfair dismissal against her employer Wrights Of Marino Manufacturing Company Limited (the Respondent)/Company) was not well founded.

4 The Complainant appealed against that decision to this Court.

5 The Complaint was filed with the Workplace Relations Commission on 27 January 2016. The Adjudication Officer issued his decision on 9 November 2016. The Complainant filed her appeal with the Labour Court on 19 December 2016. The case came on for hearing before the Court on 11 October 2017.

The Law

6 Section 6 of the Act states

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.

7 The Respondent claims that the Complainant resigned and that no dismissal took place in this case.

Background

8 The Respondent first employed the Complainant on a fixed term contract for a period of 1 year commencing on 17 June 2014.

9 On 25 April 2015, in anticipation of the expiry of the fixed term contract of employment, Mr Jonathan Wright, the Company Managing Director, offered the Complainant a further fixed term contract for a further period of 1 year. The Complainant refused that contract stating that the atmosphere in the workplace was stressful and unpleasant.

10 The Complainant states that she informed Mr Wright that she would assess the situation again in August to coincide with her scheduled annual leave. She said that she hoped that the atmosphere would have improved by then. She expected that it would do so if new employees were hired cope with the workload.

11 Mr Wright submits that at a meeting with her on the 27th April the Complainant informed him that she would not accept a second fixed term contract but would continue to work in the company until the end of August 2015 to help cover the holiday period and to train her replacement into the post.

12 He stated taht she also informed him that as of September 2015 her child-minding arrangements would cease and that she would not continue working after that date in any event. He submits that he thanked the Complainant for her co-operation and informed her that if he got someone to replace her sooner she could go before her holidays.

13 The Complainant in evidence disputed this version of events stating that she never stated that she intended giving up work for child-minding or any other reasons. She said that her only concern related to the poor atmosphere in the office, the pressure of work and the stress that under which that put her.

14 A new person was employed after that meeting. Mr Wright submits that the new employee was employed to replace the Complainant as discussed between them. The Complainant states that she was employed to replace other staff members who had left the employment and whose positions had not been filled.

15 There the matter rested until 21 July 2015 when Mr...