MAN UNFAIRLY DISMISSED WELCOMES DROPPING OF APPEAL AGAINST DECISION

A WEXFORD man who won an unfair dismissal case against his former employer in September 2016 has welcomed the dropping of an appeal against that decision, after nearly two years in limbo.

The man, who cannot be named, took a case for Unfair Dismissal in 2016. He represented himself and had intended to do so for the subsequent appeal as well.

At the original hearing in 2016, the tribunal found in favour of the complainant.

The tribunal heard that the complainant had started working with the respondent company in April 2012 on a Job-Bridge scheme that was due to finish in January 2013. The complainant was retained at this point due to an employee going on maternity leave. He was given a temporary contract that allowed his employment to continue for a further 12 months. His gross rate of pay was €410 per week.

When the other employee returned from maternity leave in January 2014, the complainant was kept on because the company was busy. Subsequently, as time went by, it transpired that the same employee would be taking a second period of maternity leave and the complainant was again retained to cover that leave.

He was also given alternative responsibiliites within the company but, towards the end of the year, work reduced and he went to a two-day week.

In the meantime, in September 2014, the respondent employed a graduate engineer who took on some of the maternity leave work as part of their training. In January 2015, the complainant returned to full-time work to cover the maternity leave period. In May 2015, he was out sick for two weeks and at the end of June 2015 he was out for seven days. Another employee was assigned to cover the work the complainant had been doing. The complainant returned but went out sick again in September 2015 with serious illness. The employee on maternity leave returned in September.

Towards the end of the year, the complainant met with the company an was advised that there was not enough work for a full-time role but the possibility of a two-day week was mentioned.

This position was further communicated at a meeting in January 2016. The complainant sent an email that evening saying he was not in a position to reduce his working hours. He was offered a position with reduced hours but this was not acceptable and arrangements were then made to arrange for the complainant to get his P45.

The complainant, in his submission, said that following the end of the first maternity leave, he was verbally advised that he was being given a full-time position - no contract was produced but he signed an Employee Code of Practice form and was given a document in relation to his duties. There were discussions about developing his role in the company and, while on sick leave, he received and answered queries relating to work issues. He added that two other workers were now performing his duties.

It was accepted that the only contract ever issued was the temporary contract in February 2013.

The tribunal determined that following the expiry of this contract in February 2014, the complainant was then employed on a contract of indefinite duration. The termination of employement could not be as a result of the maternity leave period ending, the tribunal said.

They said consideration had to be given to the reason for the complainant alone being made redundant. The offer of a two-day week, they said, could not be considered a suitable alternative.

The tribunal ultimately found that the complainant was unfairly selected for redundancy and was unfairly dismissed under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. He awarded compensation of €21,750 in respect of this.

The appeal was subsequently appealed by the company and had been due to be heard in December 2017. However, this appeal was then dropped.