EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE - claimant UD868/2011
Against
EMPLOYER - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. F. Murphy
Members: Mr. D. Morrison
Mr M. McGarry
heard this claim at Castlebar on 15th March 2013and 11th July 2013
Representation:
Claimant(s) :
Respondent(s) :
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Evidence
The respondent company was described as a commercial catering business also involved in the installation of units. A director of the respondent company (PN) outlined to the Tribunal how the company due to the financial position restructured its business. His workload in the services side of the business had significantly reduced and on that basis the decision to make the claimant redundant was made. The witness denied the claimant was made redundant because of his wife taking a case against the company. He further denied that the claimant was ever replaced. He accepted that he did not engage in any formal process before dismissing the claimant on grounds of redundancy.
A second witness (GM) explained that the claimant was employed on casual part-time basis. Following the restructuring process both company directors had more time to work at the warehouse which was where the claimant worked. The decision to make the claimant redundant was simple economics at the time with no other option available.
The claimant had no contract of employment and often worked over fifteen hours per week for the respondent. He was required to work on a flexible basis and would receive a telephone call to attend for work. His work involved driving a forklift and unloading containers. On the 22 October 2010 he recalled PN telephoning him and when he called to see him was asked if he knew about correspondence regarding his wife also an employee of the respondent company. PN asked the claimant to arrange for his wife to contact him regarding her employment. He returned to work the following week on the 26 October 2010 and was told by PN he was sacked and that there was no more work for him. He was given no prior warning or any notice of his job being at risk. The claimant’s evidence was that the respondent employed others to carry out his work and that is dismissal was not a genuine redundancy but directly related to his wife’s case against the respondent.
Determination
The Tribunal determines that the claimant fails in his claim. The evidence of the directors of the respondent company confirmed changes in the marketplace required restructuring of the company. The claimant’s position was made redundant. The respondent discharged the burden of proof that a genuine redundancy situation existed and the claimant failed to prove otherwise.
The suggestion that the claim was based on bias because of a dispute between his wife and the company is not accepted by the Tribunal. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)