EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE UD956/2012
Against
EMPLOYER
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms D. Donovan B.L.
Members: Mr T. O'Grady
Mr P. Trehy
heard this claim at Dublin on 5th September 2013
Representation:
Claimant:
Respondent:
Respondent’s case
The respondent outlined the financial circumstances that led to the requirement to make redundancies in the company. The claimant was one of two architects made redundant. The criteria considered in selecting the claimant for redundancy was qualifications, competency and the work he was engaged in at the time the redundancy situation occurred. The respondent had also to take into account that clients required consistency insofar as they liked to have the same architect working on their projects from start to finish.
The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in 1998 and was the second longest serving member of staff apart from the Partners. There were nine architects in the office. In 2009 the claimant went on a 3 day week but in October 2011 he was put back on a 5 day week because there was a particular job for him to do. This job was speculative and the respondent did not receive any payment for this work. The respondent told the Tribunal that had the claimant been successful in securing this project then he may not have been made redundant. This project may still come into being.
There were monthly staff meetings and everyone was aware of the poor financial situation. The respondent had to put a large amount of its own money into the business to cover wages. The respondent did not formally notify the claimant that he was in danger of being made redundant and considered that there was no alternative to redundancy. The claimant was not given an opportunity to appeal the decision to terminate his employment, nor was he given an opportunity to discuss alternatives such as a pay cut or a reduced working week.
Claimant’s case
Following a determination by the Tribunal that the respondent had not discharged its burden, the claimant gave evidence in respect of his losses and efforts to mitigate those losses.
Determination
Having carefully considered the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal accepts that the respondent had a need to effect redundancies for economic reasons.
However, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the manner in which the redundancy was notified to the claimant was otherwise than acceptable particularly taking into account the claimant’s senior role and length of service with the respondent.
The Tribunal is further of the opinion that the respondent should have discussed with the claimant the reasons that he was being made redundant rather than other employees and should have given the claimant an opportunity to consider and respond to these reasons.
The Tribunal finds that the respondent did not adequately or at all consider alternative employment within the organisation.
In the circumstances the Tribunal determines that the respondent did not act fairly or reasonably regarding the redundancy of the claimant. Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007,succeeds and the Tribunal awards the claimant compensation in the amount of €37,706.00 over and above the statutory redundancy payment made to the claimant on termination of his employment.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)