EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO. UD2174/2011
EMPLOYEE
Against
EMPLOYER
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr T. Ryan
Members: Mr M. Carr
Mr O. Nulty
heard this claim at Mullingar on 24th May 2013
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: In person
Respondent:
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Background:
The claimant was a regional administrative supervisor for a large chain of stores. She, along with one other, covered the Republic of Ireland providing assistance to store managers. Her counter-part took a voluntary redundancy package leaving only the claimant to perform her duties nationwide. Due to reorganisation, one new role as District Administrator was considered to be the way forward by the respondent. It was the respondent’s case that this new role would be to cover the entire 26 counties and also
include new responsibilities for the successful candidate. It was the claimant’s case that the job was the same as the role she already performed and therefor she should automatically have been offered the post.
Respondent’s case:
RG gave evidence of coming to Ireland to restructure the business. 24 out of 25 retail outlets were losing money. Consultations were held with all the stores and salaries were reduced. The claimant was written to on 8th April 2011 advising her that due to the current downturn in business her position in the company was at risk of redundancy. She was asked to attend a meeting with RG and JB to consider alternatives or other suitable openings in other stores.
At that meeting she was asked by RG if she had any interest in the new role of District Administrator. She was aggrieved by the question. She made it clear she thought she should get the job and not have to apply for it. The claimant was also provided with a list of vacancies at the time.
At a further meeting on 13th May the claimant again said, it was the same job. The role was gone through and differences were highlighted. The new job included reporting to European Operations, deputising for regional and district managers, health and safety, risk assessment and more. She was asked to apply for the job but again after all the discussion said it was still the same job. RG said that he asked her a dozen times to apply for the role but she refused. She was then issued with her letter of redundancy and allowed the right to appeal.
An appeal meeting was held on 29th June and the appeal was upheld. The position was awarded to another store manager who was the only one to apply for interview. RG gave evidence that the successful candidate had less experience than the claimant.
Under cross examination RG said he was unaware the date of the appointment of the new district administrator. He did advise the claimant of nights away from home as she was a parent of a young child. He didn’t consider offering the job to her as she didn’t apply for it and stated that she was offed 22 hours in another store but didn’t accept it.
JC the HR business partner gave evidence of putting the job description together for the new role. It was put together in mid-April and then advertised. Any jobs that become available have to be advertised and the claimant did not apply. She received nothing from the claimant in relation to any grievance and received nothing after the offer of 22 hours work. JC said that the new role was far more significant than the work the claimant had been doing.
Claimant’s case:
The claimant told the Tribunal that as far as she was concerned both jobs were the same, all that happened was a change of title. The actual job description was only given to her
on the day she was leaving. All RG kept talking about was the need for long stays away from home and he told her that the salary was less. She also told the Tribunal that all the meetings were inappropriate, it was herself and two grown men. She also contended that the notes from the appeal meeting were not accurate.
Under cross examination when asked “why she didn’t apply for the job” she again stated that it was the same job, someone else had done an interview before she was made redundant, her job was still there and should have been given to her. She was discouraged “all the way” by RG from applying for the position. Regarding the offer of 22 hours she said that she didn’t want to go back after the way she was treated.
Determination:
The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent had to restructure its business due to the fact that 24 out of its 25 retail outlets, in Ireland were losing money. Consultations were held with employees in all the stores, and salaries were reduced. The respondent wrote to the claimant on 8th April 2011 advising her that due to the current downturn in business her position in the company was at risk of redundancy.
There is conflict of evidence between the parties as to whether the claimant was made aware of a position in another store for 22 hours per week. However the Tribunal notes that, while the claimant contends that she only became aware of this vacancy on the day she was leaving, she nonetheless gave evidence that she would not take the job after the way she was treated
Having considered the totality of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the selection of the claimant for redundancy was not unfair, therefore the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)