In this case the claimant worked as a store man for the respondent company, a car parts distributor. The tribunal heard evidence that the respondent company found out that the courier service they used went out of business. The director spoke to a business acquaintance to arrange a joint meeting to come up with a solution on how they might deliver their product the next day. When the business acquaintance arrived to meet the director the claimant had told him that the director was in a meeting and the acquaintance left.

Following leaving the premises the acquaintance phoned the director and explained what had happened. The director went to the warehouse, where the claimant was working and asked who had told his colleague to leave. The claimant explained that it was him. Following his admittance, there was a verbal altercation and the claimant left the premises. After he left he contacted the warehouse manager by telephone who informed him that the director told him deny the claimant entry onto the premises again.

The Tribunal heard evidence that the Claimant submitted a sick certificate dated 1st November 2013, to the accounts manager. The Claimant gave evidence that he subsequently submitted a certificate to say he was fit to return to work. However the director disputed that a fit to return to work cert was submitted to the Respondent company. 

Determination:

The tribunal found that even if the claimant’s fitness to return to work certificate was not received by the respondent, the respondent should have contacted the claimant to clarify the situation given that the claimant was told not to return to work and denied access onto the premises. 

In the absence of such efforts the tribunal unanimously determined that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and a claim under the unfair dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 succeeded. The claimant was awarded the sum of €42, 640.00 compensation.

Read the full case report here: 
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2015/June/UD1666_2013.html