Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 211/04

APPLICANT: Kelly Eppleston

RESPONDENT: Janette Martin

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant was unfairly dismissed but that the applicant's own conduct was such as to make it inappropriate for any award of compensation to be made.

Appearances:

The applicant did not attend and was not represented.

The respondent was represented by Mrs Elizabeth Thompson.

SUMMARY REASONS

1. The applicant did not appear. Notification of hearing had been sent both to her and to her representatives on 6 December 2004. Her representatives had indicated that they would not be in attendance on 8 March 2005. The applicant had made no contact with the tribunal. The tribunal considered it appropriate to deal with the matter in the applicant's absence taking into consideration the information given on her originating application.
2. According to the evidence of the respondent which the tribunal accepted the applicant became an employee of the respondent on 1 November 2002. She continued in the respondent's employment until 27 October 2003 when she was dismissed. For the purpose of calculating the qualifying period of employment the applicant's time of employment was extended by the relevant statutory period of notice amounting to one week. Accordingly, the applicant had the required one years service to enable the tribunal to deal with the case.
3. The applicant's time-keeping was never very good. She was frequently absent, commonly on Fridays and/or Saturdays which are the busiest periods for hairdressing. The applicant took time off at the end of August at which time her grandmother died. After that the applicant took six weeks off without any medical certificate. She then submitted a certificate from 6 October – 20 October and was off for a further week without a certificate. During this time the respondent paid the applicant sick pay. The applicant's mother complained at the quantity of sick pay. The applicant's mother also indicated that the applicant would return to work on Monday 27 October. On that day the applicant phoned to say that she did not know that her mother had said that she would be returning to work but she did come to work. By this time there was no work for her. No bookings had been being taken for her. As her period of absence extended, people began to cease to ask for her. Accordingly, the respondent dismissed the applicant on that day. On Friday of the same week the applicant commenced work at another salon.
4. Although the tribunal accepts that the applicant had been spoken to on frequent occasions about her time-keeping there is no indication that any formal warning had been given, in terms, that failure to improve would result in her dismissal. The manner of her dismissal, without any previous discussion or warning was, in the tribunal's view unfair. However, while making this finding the tribunal accepts the respondent's evidence as to the applicant's own conduct which, in the tribunal's view was entirely responsible for the applicant's dismissal. Accordingly, the tribunal does not consider it appropriate that any compensation, whether by way of basic award or by way of compensatory award, should be paid.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 10 March 2005.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: