EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Alan Behan - (claimant) UD402/2013
against
Castletown Press - (respondent)
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. McGrath B.L.
Members: Mr R. Murphy
Ms. N. Greene
heard this claim at Dublin on 21st March 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s) : Ms Marie Corcoran, Hr Consultant, 12 Heywood Heights,
Clonmel, Co Tipperary
Respondent(s) : In person
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
The claimant says he was unfairly selected for redundancy when his employer’s retained a senior printer and an experienced finisher and not himself in February, 2012.
The respondent is a printing company which experienced a severe downturn from 2008. All the four printers in the company were put on a 3 day week in and around 2009. In time, two of the printers were made redundant and then in February, 2012 the claimant was notified that he was being selected for redundancy over his colleague, FS, who had two or three years less service but had a greater experience and know how and was considered number one printer and paid at a higher rate. It is noted that the claimant and his comparator both had over twenty years service with the respondent company and the respondent made these decisions with regret.
The claimant was never shown the selection criteria though never made the case that he would do the work of FS and instead made the case that he could have carried out the work of P who was a finisher and paid at a lower rate. The respondent said the job types are mutually exclusive and the claimant would have to have been trained into the job of finisher and the only person who could do that was P.
It is noted that the claimant was on a three day week for upwards of three years before he was finally made redundant. The claimant’s statutory package was calculated on the basis of the three day week and not on the previous five day figure he had been earning.
The claimant does not appear to have made a complaint of the drop in earnings/drop in hours and supplemented his income by way of social welfare. The Tribunal must therefore assume that the claimant had acquiesced to the situation albeit he hoped that the company’s fortune would turn at some point in the future.
In the circumstances, the employer was entitled to calculate the redundancy package at the level it did and whilst the employer had not delivered an RP9 to the claimant, nor had the employer served the requisite notice under Section 11 of the Redundancy Payments Act and the situation that pertained in 2009 was one of a reduction in hours and short time as recognised for the purposes of redundancies.
The evidence was that the employer was anxious to reduce costs. The Tribunal accepts that the claimant knew or ought to have known that he could have looked for voluntary redundancy at any time. If the claimant had done that within a year of the reduction in hours, his statutory redundancy would have been calculated at the higher rate. The Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that for three years after 2009 the claimant continued to draw a salary and had supplemental support from the department.
The Tribunal therefore finds the claimant was not unfairly selected for redundancy and his claim fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)