A Co Mayo credit union has so far failed to comply with a extremely rare order to re-instate an employee it unfairly dismissed.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) served the unusual order on St Coleman’s (Claremorris) Credit Union Ltd at the end of last month, giving the credit union six weeks to re-instate Karen Stapleton.
Out of 1,669 unfair dismissal cases in 2013, the EAT ordered an employee’s re-instatement on only two occasions.
Ms Stapleton’s solicitor Evan O’Dwyer, of Crean O’Cleirigh & O’Dwyer Solicitors, Ballyhaunis confirmed he received the order on January 29th. He said Ms Stapleton advised the credit union the following day that she would turn up for work the following Monday, February 2nd.
Mr O’Dwyer said Ms Stapleton was accepted back to work but was told mid-morning in front of other staff to go home without any proper explanation.
He said: “This has only added fuel to the fire and has exacerbated the situation. Karen likes her job and wants to return.”
Mr O’Dwyer said that the EAT “determination was very explicit and unequivocal that no fault lay with Karen in the situation. It stated that three times. The ball is in the credit union’s court.”
The credit union now has three weeks in which to re-instate Ms Stapleton or it can appeal the ruling to the local circuit court.
A spokesman for the credit union yesterday declined to comment.
Ms Stapleton had worked at the credit union since 2005 and in the case, the EAT records that Ms Stapleton was told on September 18th, 2012, “in the starkest and baldest of terms” to leave her place of employment.
The EAT stated that on June 19th, 2011, an unspecified allegation of bullying had been made against Ms Stapleton.
The tribunal records: “Thereafter, she had to endure the stress and confusion of knowing that there were certain vague accusations being made against her. However, no allegations were ever put to her. The stress of the situation took its toll on the claimant’s health and she went on certified sick leave for a time.”
Providing the background, the EAT stated that Ms Stapleton was out socialising in June 2011 and was approached by a member of the public and accused of bullying a fellow employee known as ‘L’.
Ms Stapleton was on sick leave in 2012 due to the stress from the situation.
The EAT reports that while on sick leave, she received a letter from the credit union stating that there were no allegations made against her.
Ms Stapleton said that was thrilled to receive this letter and was satisfied to return to work.
The report states: “Before she did so she made a number of requests from the credit union. She wanted equality of treatment with other employees and sought an apology from the board of the credit union.
“She requested arrears of wages as her wages had been stopped at the end of May 2012. As she had not done anything wrong she requested that her sick leave absences be zeroed.
“She requested that her pension entitlements be re-instated and looked for re-reimbursement of her medical expenses.
“Finally she requested that ‘L’ be reprimanded in line with the company’s policy on bullying. She received a letter dated 25th May asking her to attend mediation and she confirmed same but looked for items of data from the respondent. The mediation never took place.”
In September 2012, Ms Stapleton attended with her solicitor a meeting with members of the board of the credit union.
The EAT report states: “At this meeting she was presented with a letter by the board which she was requested to sign withdrawing her aforementioned demands. She gave evidence that she was told that if she did not sign the letter she would be dismissed from her employment.”
Ms Stapleton presented for work the following morning. She began her duties and at 11.10am she was called to a meeting.
Ms Stapleton again re-iterated her previous requests and she was then told to leave the building and give back her keys. Ms Stapleton understood that she was dismissed.
Giving evidence on behalf of the credit union, company secretary said he knew Ms Stapleton all of his life. He told her to drop the legal stuff and come back to work. She had friends on the board and it would have got sorted, he told the tribunal.
Ms Stapleton gave evidence to the EAT that her position was filled by the company secretary’s daughter on a part-time basis.
A minority view of the three-member tribunal concluded Ms Stapleton should receive €24,500 for the unfair dismissal and not be re-instated because it was clear that the relationship between Ms Stapleton and her employer had irretrievably broken down and it wouldn’t be appropriate to re-instate her.
However, the majority view of the tribunal was that re-instatement was the appropriate remedy due to Ms Stapleton not contributing in any way to her dismissal; no procedures were adopted; the dismissal was wholly and substantially unfair and it was Ms Stapleton’s preferred option to have her job back.
