EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE UD1402/2012
RP891/2012
against
EMPLOYER
- respondent
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms C. Egan B L
Members: Mr. W. O'Carroll
Ms H. Murphy
heard this claim at Galway on 6th September 2013
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s) : In Person
Respondent(s) : Directors of respondent company
The claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 was withdrawn by the claimant during the course of the hearing.
Respondent’s Case
Two directors of the respondent company gave evidence on behalf of the company. The company operates as tourism and development association since the early nineties providing services to the local community. It is based in the west of Ireland and receives funding from a series of community fundraising schemes. It also receives Pobal funding. The company moved to a larger premises in 2009 and operated a tourist office from the new premises. The company was also involved in the local courthouse restoration project and the publication of a local newsletter.
By late 2011 it became apparent that the company had suffered a serious deterioration in their overall financial resources. Tourism numbers had reduced and income was reducing accordingly. The financial deterioration was also highlighted to the company by Pobal and the company could not sustain another year of loss making in 2012. The company had to introduce cost savings measures and the operation and profitability of the tourist office was now a major issue. The company had 5 employees in the tourist office, 3 full-time and 2 part-time. The claimant was employed on a salary of €12 per hour which was greater than the other employees with the exception of the manager.
The company had to restructure their office operation and as part of the overall cost saving measures had to implement pay reductions. The company held a series of meetings with the claimant regarding proposals to re-structure the office, including a staff incentive scheme and to introduce pay reductions. The claimant refused to accept a reduction to her pay or proposals to re-structure the office. As a result the company was left with no option but to close the tourist office on 10 May 2012 and it remains closed to date. The claimant was made redundant and was paid her statutory redundancy entitlement.
Claimant’s Case
The claimant gave evidence that she believed that the respondent wanted to remove the manager of the tourist office as an employee and she (the witness) became a pawn in this exercise. She believed that she was an innocent party in the process. She was in the respondent’s employment for 6 years and was the longest serving employee.
She accepted that the company was in dire financial straits but she was pressurised into taking a pay reduction. She could not afford to take a pay cut and have her employment contract set aside. She refused to take a pay cut. She made many fundraising suggestions to the company but these suggestions were not accepted. She was not offered reduced hours or an alternative position within the company. She gave evidence that she had previously worked on the newsletter publication and could easily have worked in that section again but this was not offered to her. She was made redundant in May 2012. She has been unemployed since then and has started her own business in the past two weeks.
Determination
The Tribunal considered the evidence adduced at the hearing by the parties. The Tribunal accepts that it was necessary for the respondent to restructure its business based on the deterioration in the financial reserves of the company. The respondent tried to implement a restructuring process but this process failed due to the lack of co-operation of the claimant. The Tribunal also notes that the claimant failed to accept a proposed reduction to her pay in January 2012. The Tribunal notes that the tourist office closed down in May 2012 and remains closed to date. The claimant’s position has not been replaced.
In those circumstances the Tribunal finds that the actions of the claimant were unreasonable in not accepting the proposed restructuring changes to the company and a proposed reduction to her salary.
The Tribunal finds that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and her claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)