UD1184/2012

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:                                                                                                               CASE NO.

Kieran Crowley                                                                                                        UD1184/2012

against

Pinewest Properties Limited

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Ms. K. O'Mahony B.L.

Members:     Mr. D. Hegarty

                    Ms. H. Kelleher

heard this claim at Cork on 8th January 2014

Representation:

Claimant:

             Mr Graham Hyde, Thomas Coughlan & Co, Solicitors, 1-2 Anglesea Street, Cork

Respondent:

            No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent and the Tribunal are satisfied that the respondent was properly notified of the hearing.

Claimant’s case:

The respondent operates an amusement arcade. The claimant commenced employment on 1^st June 1982 in the arcade. The name of the company operating the amusement arcade changed a number of times over the years. In early 2012 the respondent advised the employees, including the claimant, that the business was going into liquidation and that they would be made redundant. The claimant was dismissed by way of redundancy on 14 February 2012 but his statutory redundancy payment was made by the social insurance fund and not the respondent. The respondent did not go into liquidation but the business closed down shortly after the claimant had been made redundant. However, within a few weeks of the closure renovation work began on the premises and about eight or nine months after its closure the premises re-opened as a gaming arcade, in the same business.

The claimant contended that there was a link between the new owners and the respondent but he could not say with certainty that there was a business connection between them. It was the claimant’s position that a genuine redundancy did not exist and that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Determination:

There was no evidence whatsoever from which the Tribunal could conclude that there had been a transfer of the respondent’s business from the respondent to the subsequent owners who were/are operating the arcade or that both owners of the business were one and the same, operating under a different name. There was no evidence to suggest that the claimant’s dismissal was anything other than a genuine redundancy. Accordingly, the claim for unfair dismissal is unfounded and the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)