EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE UD1836/2011
Against
EMPLOYER
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr E. Murray
Members: Ms M. Sweeney
Ms P. Doyle
heard this claim at Cork on 24th June 2013
Representation:
_______________
Claimant:
Respondent:
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of evidence:
The managing director of the Respondent Company gave evidence that the Respondent is a building firm with a specialised division that was mainly engaged in subsidence repair, masonry repair and heritage conservation work. The Claimant began as a general operative with the company and was later promoted to the position of ganger man of a subsidence repair crew. He worked in the housing division, mainly on housing subsidence cases.
Due to a downturn in the economy, and a major change in the attitude of insurance companies towards subsidence claims, business deteriorated. In early 2011 it became obvious that work was reducing to such an extent that some staff were going to have to be made redundant. The criteria used to select people for redundancy were based on their skillsets, experience and on-going value to the business.
The managing director consulted with the general manager, and the Claimant was one of the employees selected for redundancy. The Claimant was called to a meeting and told of his selection, he was very unhappy and asked to be re-graded to general operative. There was however no position available and nothing that the managing director could do. He explained that though he regarded the Claimant as an excellent employee, his area of skill and experience was in subsidence repair and this was the area most adversely affected by the changes. He thought it imperative to retain employees that had the skills required to best advance the interests of the business. He said it was the most difficult decision that he ever had to make in business.
The Claimant told the Tribunal that the company was a good employer. He was shocked when called in and asked if the firm was closing down. He offered to go back to working on a crew and the managing director told him that he would see what he could do. He rang later the same day and was told unfortunately there was nothing available. The Claimant maintained other employees, with shorter service were offered demotions and agency staff were retained. He also stated that the work is not highly skilled and that he had performed some of the other requirements on various occasions and would have done anything if given a chance.
Determination:
Having heard all of the evidence the Tribunal accepts that a genuine redundancy situation arose in this case. Both witnesses were very frank and forthcoming in their approach to the case. Having carefully considered the evidence adduced by both parties at the hearing the Tribunal finds that on balance the Respondent was justified in using the selection criteria that they did use. It is most unfortunate that this had such extreme consequences for the Claimant. Consequently, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007, therefore fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)