The Claimant was employed as a fitness instructor for the respondent’s hotel. The claimant’s case is premised on events in a meeting with the respondent's financial controller. At this meeting (which the claimant had no notice of) the claimant was questioned surrounding a €10.00 guest fee which the claimant had accepted at the leisure centre reception. The claimant said she had failed to follow the correct cash handling procedures on this occasion as a result of being so busy. When the claimant failed to provide explanation for where this €10 had gone; the respondent stated that he had no option but to let the claimant go; the respondent gave the claimant the option of either leaving immediately or finishing the week. The claimant decided to leave immediately. A dispute arises as to whether the claimant was dismissed or whether she resigned. 

The respondent on the other hand stated that he did not dismiss the claimant or suggest that her contract would be terminated. Rather, the respondent suggested that the claimant resigned. 

The tribunal held that the “respondent defacto dismissed the claimant by giving her the impression that she was dismissed and knowingly allowed her to continue in this belief.” The court held that the procedures were unfair. 

Under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 the tribunal awarded the claimant €15,000 in compensation. A further €380 was awarded under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005 being equivalent to one week’s notice. 
http://bit.ly/1fWjSNm