 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Sheppard v Loughview Timber Solutions Ltd [2007] NIIT 1312_07IT (12 December 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2007/1312_07IT.html Cite as: [2007] NIIT 1312_7IT, [2007] NIIT 1312_07IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1312/07
CLAIMANT: Martin Sheppard
RESPONDENT: Loughview Timber Solutions Limited
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Ms Oliver
Members: Mr Grant
Mrs Foster
Appearances:
The claimant appeared and represented himself.
The respondent appeared and was represented by Mr Pat Moore of Peninsula Business Services Ltd.
1. Sources of Evidence
The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and Mrs Mary Sheppard the claimant's mother and from Mr Niall McCartan the managing director of the respondent company. The tribunal was also referred to a bundle of documents provided by the respondent.
2. The Claim and the Defence
The claimant claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The respondent denied that the claimant had been dismissed, stating that the claimant had left his employment and subsequently a letter of resignation was signed on his behalf.
The issues for the tribunal were whether the claimant had been dismissed from his employment and if so whether the dismissal was unfair.
There was a conflict in the evidence. The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent. The claimant was not a credible witness. He was evasive in his answers and often gave contradictory responses. In his evidence in chief he indicated that he had previously left his employment with the respondent voluntarily whereas the respondent produced evidence to show that he had actually been dismissed. The claimant denied that signatures on letters were his when it was clear to the tribunal that these were his signatures.
The claimant recommenced employment with the respondent on 18 October 2004.
On 26 March 2007 the claimant was employed on the factory floor as a joiner. He was asked by Mr Greg McCartan to go down to the ripsaw to rip timber. He refused to go. He was asked again by Mr McCartan to go down to the ripsaw and again he refused to do so.
There followed a verbal exchange between the parties and the claimant left the factory stating "I'm not f ing doing it. If you don't like it, you can f off. I'll just go". He did not return to the factory either that day or at a later date.
The claimant's mother called to the factory to collect the claimant's wages. She was asked to confirm that her son had left the respondent's employment before receipt of the wages. She signed a document stating
Martin Sheppard has left on 27 March his employ at Loughview Timber Solutions Ltd.
The respondent accepted that the claimant had left the respondent's employment and paid him the wages due to him at the date of termination of his employment.
The Law
Article 126 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 gives an employee the right not to be unfairly dismissed.
There are several cases concerning the problem of ambiguous language in a dismissal/resignation situation and the tribunal considered these cases when reaching a decision. The cases illustrate that in situations where ambiguous words are used, an objective test is appropriate. The tribunal should consider how a reasonable listener would have understood the words spoken i.e. in construing the words as words of resignation, did the listener not merely genuinely construe them that way, but was he acting reasonably in all the circumstances in so construing them.
6. Application of the Law and Findings of fact to the Issues.
The tribunal concludes that the claimant was not dismissed from his employment. He left voluntarily.
We find that, taking the claimant's words " I'll just go " and his actions of not returning to the workplace and sending his mother to collect his wages together, this indicates that the claimant left his work voluntarily and did not intend to return and indeed did not return.
A reasonable employer was entitled to construe the claimant's words and actions as a resignation.
We therefore dismiss the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 26 October 2007, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: