THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	1049/02

APPLICANT:		Derek Neil Robinson

RESPONDENT:		Finlay Communications Limited

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the applicant was not unfairly dismissed by the respondent and his application to the Tribunal is dismissed.
Appearances:
The applicant appeared in person and was not represented.
The respondent was represented by Mr Greg McCourt, Solicitor of Murray McCourt Kelly, Solicitors

In accordance with the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 at Schedule 1 Rule 10(4) the reasons for this decision are given in summary form.

1.	The applicant, in his Originating Application, claimed that he had been constructively dismissed by the respondent and the dismissal was therefore unfair.  The respondent in its appearance denied that he had been so dismissed.

2.	(a)	The applicant was employed by the respondent since in or about January 2000 as a Senior Engineer/Team Leader installing/servicing satellite equipment on behalf of BskyB for whom the respondent acted.	
			
	(b)	The applicant on or about 14 August 2000 was admitted to hospital with a suspected heart attack and remained off work until 14 December 2000.  He found he was unable to carry out his work due to his medical condition and was again off work until 13 March 2002.  Before the applicant resumed work on 13 March 2002 the respondent had the applicant medically examined by an independent consultant and received a medical report from his own general practitioner.  The respondent was advised that there were no medical contra indications to him starting back to work and there were no limitations on his ability to carry out his work.	
			
	(c)

(d)

	Following a letter dated 11 March 2002 from the respondent the applicant met his General Manager, Mr Cull, to discuss, in light of the said medical advice, his return to work.  The applicant stressed how fit he now was and how keen he was to immediately return to work and did not seek at the meeting any structured return to work.  Mr Cull conducted the meeting in a firm businesslike manner and was not abusive or hostile to the applicant, albeit in the course of same probably used some bad language.  Following this meeting a schedule of work involving a normal day’s workload was prepared to be carried out by the applicant on 13 March 2002.  On his return to work on 13 March 2002 the applicant objected to the number of jobs he had been asked to do.  Mr Cull asked him to start the list of jobs and in light of progress the matter could be reassessed.  The applicant refused and decided to go home.  After Mr Cull had sent another team leader, Mr Wilson, to speak to the applicant, the applicant returned to work and after discussion a schedule involving a structured return to work for each day during the following week was drawn up.  In accordance with this schedule on 14 March 2002 the applicant worked alongside Mr Wilson reviewing paperwork and changes to procedure during his period of absence.  On 15 March 2002 the applicant was carrying out his scheduled workload when the Applicant properly sought guidance from the respondent whether he should, as instructed, install equipment at certain premises.  The respondent had to seek confirmation from BSkyB, which took approximately 20 minutes to obtain and which was not unreasonable in the circumstances.  No criticism was made of the applicant over any of his actions in relation to the above installation.  The installation was not arranged by the respondent to put the applicant in an intolerable position in order to justify a subsequent dismissal.  Thereafter the applicant completed, without complaint, his day’s work.

On 18 March 2002 the applicant informed the respondent that after full consideration of the matter he had decided to resign from his employment.  He accepted the respondent had been more than fair but indicated the return to work had not worked out for him.  He suggested that in a year’s time he might be fitter and able to come back and work for the respondent.  He indicated that he believed due to his medical condition he would be able to obtain benefits following his resignation.  He was not prepared to reconsider his decision.	

2.	The Tribunal is satisfied that in the circumstances there was not any repudiatory breach of contract by the employer entitling the applicant to claim constructive dismissal.  The applicant was therefore not unfairly dismissed and his application to the Tribunal is dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and Place of Hearing:     6 September 2002; 27 September 2002 at Belfast

Date Decision recorded in registered and issued to parties: