Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
CHRISTY MOORE IS 75 years old today.
Once named as Ireland’s greatest living musician, his records and CDs are in homes all across the country. But how much do you know about his back catalogue and the songs he’s famous for singing?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
People can be very precious sometimes
Like the last few articles on the EAT, they have no power, and take boths sides versions with equal credibility (i.e the employee and company can say anything unsubstantiated and it is taken as fact by the (usually ex-union) guy in the chair position). The employer is entitled now to go to a real court, and see if the unfair dismissal is valid, where by the employee not turning up for dismissal meetings and the company following due process will be taken into account. They have to with this against writing off work €7k.
It should be easier for employees to go to proper legal entity to weigh up the facts of a case. Too often, the EAT “judges” in favour of the employee, only for it to be overturned in court. This is unfair to both the employee and the company, and the only purpose is to make the hundreds of “quasi-judicial” chairs feel a bit of power for the day.
Rather than being chaired by impartial people, it has a mix of pro-employee and pro-employer people. If your case is heard by one or the other, the outcome is decided by the prejudices of the person presiding on the day, rather than the facts of the case.
If the parties have enough funds, the cases are nearly always appealing to the courts.
The tribunals are a waste of time and money, but you must go through them to get access to the court
I agree… It can go either way. In observations, all the reported cases are chaired by the pro-union adjudicators, but that is the ones where employees get the award (which tempts other employees to constructively get dismissed and take a case on the basis that there is a template for getting sacked and over 50% chance of getting a reward). This may be related to the non movable position of Kieran Mulvey in managing this charade.
It also hides the cases where competent employees are genuinely bullied and harassed in work, and lose their case due to an opinion of a pro-employer chair. The whole system is a joke, and it’s history was just to remove cases from courts, and give unelected union and IBEC guys a bit of power.
have your say