|
|
|
News |
|
|
Home |
News |
Opinion |
Features |
Sports |
What's On |
Photos |
Web Directory |
Homepages |
Forum |
email |
Shop |
Auctions |
Classifieds |
Around the County |
Local Information |
Chat |
Email List |
Newsletter |
Tell Us |
|
Aughrim Man Wins Case Against Local Angling FacilityThursday, December 6th, 2001By Tony Murphy A former FAS supervisor with the National Disabled Angling Facility in Aughrim who took an unfair dismissal claims against the company won his case this week. However, Mr. Paddy Byrne from Annacurra Road, Aughrim was awarded compensation instead of a return to his job. Mr. Byrne was dismissed in June 2000 after it was claimed by the Management Board of the N.D.A.F. that he had failed to make returns to the Revenue on behalf of the company. Represented by Mr. Thomas Honan, Solicitor he claimed that it was not his job to do so but it did emerge in the course of the two-day hearing that the returns were made. The Appeals Board concluded this week that the dismissal was unfair and that there was no properly constituted board meeting to make a decision on the dismissal. It also felt that a meeting of the board members ignored a request to defer for a month the decision to dismiss until the outcome of the investigation. `We find that the N.D.A.F. did not carry out any formal investigation into the issue of the non-filing of these revenue returns. In the absence of any investigation, the company failed to prove that the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct and it was not reasonable for Mr. Byrne to be dismissed summarily', the findings added. While Mr. Byrne sought re-instatement, it was pointed out at the tribunal that his job was now filled. The tribunal awarded him £10,000 compensation with £1,560 to cover the four weeks he would have been paid had he been given notice. Mr. Byrne told Wicklowtoday.com afterwards that while he was pleased with the result he was looking for re-instatement rather than compensation. He said he was somewhat disappointed that the findings did not bring out the fact that the returns in question were made to the revenue as was proven at the hearing. |
|
|
| RETURN TO MAIN NEWS PAGE |
|
|
|
