Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A MAN WHOSE health deteriorated as a result of his treatment at work was constructively dismissed, the Labour Court has ruled.
Daniel O’Reilly, a former technician with Swords-based facility management company Acuman, now in liquidation, resigned his position in October 2013 after being made to feel “isolated and under constant surveillance”.
His employment was described as uneventful until he was ordered to attend a four-and-a-half hour disciplinary meeting to discuss allegations including failure to complete timesheets and answer phone calls, as well as unsatisfactory work.
The claimant refuted the claims made against him, saying he had only ever been unable to answer works calls and texts when he was driving, and that he had never been made aware of any issue with his work.
The claimant also said he was not in a position to fully complete some timesheets as he had not been provided with a job number for certain tasks, and that he had explained this in a note attached to the relevant documents.
In evidence, O’Reilly said a manager at the disciplinary meeting had provided little information about the complaints and repeated accusations until the claimant agreed with him.
Allegations
Later that month, a line manager emailed the claimant to ask why he had been late on three consecutive days.
O’Reilly said he was delayed on only one of those days, when he had been caught in traffic on the way to meet a client, but that he had notified both the client and helpdesk of this in advance.
His line manager told him to make up the time by working through lunch, which he did, but he said he felt picked on and told the helpdesk that he would not be in the following day.
The same manager had previously told the claimant’s colleagues that he was “not committed to his job” as he could not work overtime hours after moving to Cork, where he lived on weekends.
A new member of staff was also told to watch him “like a hawk”, O’Reilly claimed.
Grievance
In a letter to the claimant the next week, the company’s HR manager apologised for the length of the disciplinary meeting and said no further action would be taken.
They agreed to both meet the claimant’s supervisor the following day to try to resolve their differences.
However, O’Reilly was unhappy with the outcome of their meeting and decided to instigate a formal grievance complaint.
After he was transferred to the company’s head office, where he said he was given only small jobs to do, the claimant took sick leave for work-related stress and subsequently decided to resign.
He felt the grievance procedure was a “whitewash” as no witnesses were called, but he continued to engage in the process even after his employment ended.
The managing director offered him his job back in February 2014, but the offer was rescinded after O’Reilly said he would only return to the position if his grievances were addressed.
Ruling
In a recent judgement, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) said it accepted that the claimant’s treatment “caused a deterioration of his health which made it impossible for him to maintain his trust” in the company.
The EAT found that the claimant was “fully justified” in rejecting the second contract of employment offered to him.
It ruled that O’Reilly had been constructively dismissed and awarded him a total of €20,199.42 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Can I have my money back now
It’s like’…..burning your furniture – to keep warm!
Why are PwC saying this instead of IBRC and NAMA?
As property prices start to rise nama , ibrc start to dump property
Can someone explain why?
Dumping loans philip, not property. They’re Dumping the loans as they’re non-performing and want to get them off the balance sheet.
If they had the patience, they’d put arrangements in place to allow the properties to return to positive equity and then seek a sale, this recouping more of the tax payers money.
Unfortunately, they’ll sell the loans for a discount and allow the new purchasers to do this and net a tidy profit.
The article outlines that IBRC (IBROKE would probably be a better name) will offload € 15 billion in loans.
Yet the linked article tells us that IBROKE have already offloaded 90% of its loanbook, € 19.8 billion out of € 21.7 billion leaving just € 1.9 billion on hand.
This can only mean, if the previous article is correct, that it is NAMA that is offloading the majority of the loans.
Why the subterfuge?
Why make people think that this is some kind of joint enterprise when it is NAMA that is leading the charge?
Have the shiny suit brigade from the canal something to hide?
Given their obsession with secrecy it would not surprise me if they have, perhaps selling the loans to some preferred customer with an inside track at a serious discount.
The way things go it will all be wrapped up before we know anything, plus ça change.
Who in their right mind would buy this junk?
It might only be worth 30% of face value but if you buy it for 20% it’s a good deal. For the buyer anyway.
@ Irish Revolution
The Banks?
Hedge funds bought it. They will now sell off all the ghost estates etc at a lower price so people that have houses for sale at the min will eventually have to sell for half or take them off the market.
Fab house here in drogheda asking price €325. Hilarious. You could now nearly get a house for that on raglan road or ailsbury road!! So that house is realistically worth less than €150 really.
People and notions ha
What about Bank of Scotland selling on my mortgage & others in their Irish portfolio to a company called Tanager Ltd.
I’m in a tizzy all day because I don’t know what it means for us.
have your say