Takeaway worker fired after taking three weeks off over Christmas

A worker at a takeaway claimed she was treated differently in the workplace after she reported the business to the National Employment Rights Authority. Loreta Gervinskiene was later fired by Denis Quinn, trading as Take Five Fast Food after she took three weeks holiday over Christmas.

An Employment Appeals Tribunal hearing was told that this was unfair to the two other employees at the takeaway and that Ms Gervinskiene had already taken paid annual leave earlier.

Ms Gervinskiene claimed she was unfairly dismissed and told the tribunal she had informed the authority of “irregularities” at the takeaway business. An inspector attended the premises and issued a finding. She told the tribunal that she felt she was treated differently by the respondent after this event.

In September 2013 she had asked her employer for a loan of €600 in order to buy tickets for a trip home over the following Christmas. She also informed her two colleagues. One of them said she was not at all happy with the arrangement.

Some time before her departure, she again spoke to Mr Quinn who informed her he was not happy with her impending trip, but he would discuss the matter on her return. On her return on January 7th last year, she received a letter of dismissal. She was not given the opportunity to appeal the decision.

At the hearing in Thurles earlier this year, Mr Quinn conceded that proper procedures were not carried out when he dismissed Ms Gervinskiene.

In late November, the other two employees had contacted him to complain that she was taking three weeks leave over Christmas. He spoke to her about the unfairness towards her colleagues and about the fact that the details of this leave had not been entered on the calendar as was usual.

He told the tribunal that she had already taken paid annual leave earlier that year and he told her he would talk to her again on her return from her leave.

However, when he reviewed the situation and, considering previous verbal warnings she had received in the past, he made the decision to dismiss her. Mr Quinn said that his decision to dismiss had nothing to do with the fact that the employment rights authority had inspected the premises in early 2013.

The tribunal noted that while the company’s position was that Ms Gervinskiene had contributed significantly to her own dismissal, the fact that proper procedures were not followed in the dismissal made it unfair on that basis alone. The tribunal was also of the view that the sanction of dismissal may not have been a proportionate response.

However, it also decided that Ms Gervinskiene had contributed significantly to her own dismissal. There was an established practice in place among for the booking and taking of holidays and she had unilaterally departed from this practice. In doing so, she had alienated at least one of her fellow workers and compromised her employer.

“Her disregard for the established and accepted arrangement for the taking of holidays was inflammatory and undermined the mutual trust that existed within the workplace,” the tribunal said in its report of the case just published.

It awarded her €4,000 compensation in respect of her unfair dismissal.