EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIMS OF: CASE NOS
EMPLOYEE – claimant UD2124/2011
RP2717/2011
WT857/2011
against
EMPLOYER – respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms D. Donovan BL
Members: Mr J. Hennessy
Mr F. Barry
heard this claim at Portlaoise on 06th June 2013
Representation:
Claimant:
Respondent:
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The claims under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 and under Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 were withdrawn.
Respondent’s Case
The former senior bar man gave evidence. He only worked for the respondent for a short time. He heard the clubhouse manager say that he would get rid of dead wood and that he liked the idea of a new crew. When he met the claimant about 2 weeks after he started work he was shocked by how hands on she was. He had not met a supervisor like her over the many years he worked in hotels.
The general manager gave evidence. The business is a golf course and resort. For a time the business had gone well. It was very busy and rates were good. In 2010 business started to decline. In 2011 green fees were reduced but by October 2011, the end of the golf season, the decline was dramatic. There was not enough corporate business to sustain the operation through the winter. The general manager looked at overheads and people in an effort to cut costs. At this time the enterprise was under the control of two receivers.
The general manager made the decision to make the claimant redundant. She worked in the food and beverage area as a supervisor. She reported to the clubhouse manager and was reported to by up to seven assistants all of whom were casual and seasonal workers. He did not offer the claimant a part-time position because no such position was available. The claimant was offered a position doing breakfasts in the hotel but she responded by declining the position saying it was not for her. The decision to make her redundant was not easy but it had to be made for financial reasons. She was not replaced. The claimant did not appeal the decision to make her redundant.
The claimant had been unhappy with the clubhouse manager’s treatment of her but in the general manager’s view she had no role in interviewing or hiring casual staff. Also the clubhouse manager was not authorised to promote an assistant to the position of supervisor.
The senior manager gave evidence. Golf is a seasonal business and was busy from May to September. In September 2011 the weather was particularly bad resulting in the club house being closed for 90% of the time. A winter plan was needed. A decision was made to close the food & beverage operation for the winter. They would still take bookings for functions. After that it was a choice between the clubhouse manager and the supervisor for redundancy. The clubhouse manager is an essential position. The senior manager came to the view that the claimant would have to be made redundant.
The HR manager for the resort gave evidence. She was responsible for recruitment with the head of department. There was not much recruitment, 7 or 8 positions a year, depending on fall off. She had not seen the claimant attend selection interviews.
She met the claimant on 29 September 2011 and by then the claimant already knew that the restaurant and bar would close. The HR manager did not discuss alternative positions with her because she did not want to engage.
The HR manager had met the claimant previously to hear her concerns about the integration of new staff members. The claimant did not raise any issues about the former general manager. The roster was changed following the meeting.
The HR manager did not inform the claimant that the food & beverage operation would close for the winter when she herself was told in September 2011.
Claimant’s Case
The claimant gave evidence. She was not prepared when she was told that the clubhouse would close for the winter and as a result there would be no position for a supervisor. She was told it was not personal and that it was a financial decision. The claimant was shocked to be made redundant because 8 other people were still employed and her salary was only €1 per hour more.
The claimant always took 4 weeks off during the winter and worked the breakfast shift there.
There had been no issues with her employment. She enjoyed her work. If she had been offered a full time position in the hotel she would have taken it despite feeling that management wanted to get rid of her from the clubhouse. She was concerned that in another position her hours would just fizzle out.
The claimant established loss for the Tribunal.
Determination:
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced. The respondent’s entitlement to restructure the business and make redundancies particularly during a time of economic decline is acknowledged.
However in this case the respondent did not engage meaningfully with the claimant. She was not put on notice that her position was in jeopardy and was not given sufficient details of the proposed alternative position to believe it was a genuine alternative position.
The Tribunal finds that the claimant’s dismissal was not fair. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2005 succeeds and she is awarded the sum of €16,000.00.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)