UD1700/2012

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM(S) OF:                                                                                                          CASE NO.

Sarah O'Kane,            (claimant)                                                                    UD1700/2012

against

James H. North & Co. Limited T/A North's Property            (respondent)

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Mr C. Corcoran B.L.

Members:     Mr. N. Ormond

                    Mr F. Keoghan

heard this claim at Dublin on 7th February 2014

Representation:

_______________

Claimant(s) :                In person        

Respondent(s) :           In person          

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

Summary of Respondent’s case

Giving evidence, the Chairman of the respondent company told the Tribunal that the claimant commenced employment on 4^th October, 2010 as a Residential Letting, Management and Sales Agent. In September, 2011 the claimant was promoted to Residential Management and Lettings Manager. In January 2012 after the claimant commenced a relationship with the Sales Director, the claimant was told she would no longer be reporting to that Director. The reporting line was changed and the claimant subsequently reported to the Chief Executive. In April, 2012, JD, another agent employed by the respondent tendered his resignation and the claimant took over the management of JD’s properties.  

On 11^th May, 2012 on the instruction from the Chairman, two vacancies were posted on the professional bodies’ website (SCSI). At this time the Sales Director was spending a significant amount of time in the UK working on a project, which left the role of Sales Director vacant. An intern delivered a CV to the respondent. She had a masters in marketing and was seeking work experience. She was interviewed by the Chief Executive who then called in the claimant to meet her. It was a temporary appointment with the intern assisting at a junior level in inspections and viewings. Due to the resignation of the Sales Director, a new agent (NA), who had also been appointed, would now effectively deal with both residential and commercial work. The NA, a graduate surveyor, commenced employment in July, 2012.

As there had been significant changes in personnel, it was decided that the Chief Executive and Chairman would share the Sales Director’s management role of staff. A review meeting was held with the claimant on 23^rd August, 2012. The Chairman stated that he informed the claimant that the respondent was losing money and that this was unsustainable. A review meeting was due to take place one month later.  

Due to further significant loss of business, it was decided that the board would meet to consider redundancies. The Directors met on 5^th September, 2012 at a regular weekly commercial meeting and three staff members were considered – the claimant, the intern and the graduate surveyor. The discussions centred on the claimant and the graduate surveyor as the intern would be finishing shortly in any event. After discussion and a further meeting on 12^th September, 2012 it was decided to make the claimant redundant due to the fact that the quantity surveyor had different qualifications and commercial property experience, qualifications/experience that the claimant did not possess.

On 18^th September, 2012 the claimant was told she was being made redundant.   The Chairman indicated that he told the claimant she could remain working with the respondent until she found another job. As the claimant was upset, the meeting was adjourned and resumed again on 20^th September, 2012. At the resumed meeting the claimant was made redundant in the manner she requested, with redundancy papers to be prepared promptly together with a cheque for her entitlements. On 3^rd October, 2012 the claimant called by appointment to the respondent and received a cheque for €3,000 and a letter of notice of redundancy. She also got a final payslip showing any other amounts due to her which had been paid direct to her bank account.

The Chairman denied that the claimant was dismissed because of her relationship with the Sales Director.

Summary of Claimant’s case

Giving evidence, the claimant told the Tribunal that she was promoted to Residential Management and Lettings Manager in September, 2011. She managed two employees – an agent (SLA) and a property manager (PMA). She reported to the Sales Director, the Chief Executive and Executive Chairman. The claimant stated that in January, 2012 issues arose as a result of her commencing a relationship with the Sales Director. As a result of the relationship, the claimant was then told she had to report directly to the Chief Executive (CE).

After an agent left the company (SLA), the claimant took over the management of his properties and was solely responsible for over 200 residential investment properties. When CE decided to employ an intern, she told the claimant that she would be involved in the interview process but she was not asked to participate. The claimant became concerned when she noticed that a Senior role, which sounded like her job was advertised. When the new agent was appointed (NA) in July 2012, the NA was given nearly half of the previous agents (SLA) portfolio to look after as well as working on some commercial work.  

The claimant trained NA on various aspects of residential management. The claimant felt her authority was being undermined when CE asked to attend weekly meetings that the claimant had heretofore normally chaired. On 23^rd August 2012, the claimant was invited to a performance review. It was the first such review. The claimant stated that it was not really a review meeting at all and that they had discussed a property in Rathfarnham. On 18^th September 2012, two clients left the respondent company to go to the previous Sales Director’s new company. The claimant was called to a review meeting that afternoon and was told there was no option but to make her redundant. No other options were discussed with the claimant.    

The claimant gave evidence of loss and efforts to mitigate her loss.

Determination

On the balance of probabilities, having regard to the circumstances of this case, the selection for redundancy was fair and accordingly the dismissal was fair. Therefore, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails. The Tribunal is mindful of the provisions of Section (4) (c) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)