EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Una Finnegan, - appellant RP49/2013
against
Martin Murray - respondent
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. E. Kearney BL
Members: Mr T. Gill
Ms H. Henry
heard this appeal at Galway on 20th June 2014
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s) : Mr George Bruen, Bruen Glynn & Co, Solicitors, Tuam,
Co Galway
Respondent(s) : Ms Tracey McDermott, Claffey Gannon & Company, Solicitors,
Barrack Street, Castlerea, Co Roscommon
Summary of Case
The appellant commenced working as a secretary for the now retired doctor’s medical practice in November 1977. Initially she did not receive any contract of employment but was provided with a contract in 1989. She continued working for the respondent until he retired from his medical practice in May 2012. She gave evidence that following the respondent’s retirement she was given a 6 month contract by the incoming doctor and was subsequently offered two further 6 month contracts. She gave evidence that the incoming doctor planned to emigrate to Australia but this did not materialize and she continues to work in the medical practice but gave evidence that her hours of work have increased and she has increased responsibility. She told the Tribunal that at the time of the changeover in the practice, the incoming doctor had informed her that the respondent had requested him to retain her in employment. This was confirmed to the Tribunal by the respondent who gave evidence that he was very satisfied when the incoming doctor confirmed to him that he would retain the appellant in employment following his (the respondent’s) retirement due to ill health. He was unaware as to what type of contract was offered to the appellant following the changeover. He was just satisfied that she was being retained in her employment. He did not seek or receive any legal advice regarding the matter. The respondent’s wife gave evidence that she worked in the practice in the evenings. She told the Tribunal that she assured the appellant that the practice would not be closing and that her employment would continue with the incoming doctor. She gave further evidence that the incoming doctor assured her that he would be retaining the appellant in employment and there would be no change to her position.
The Tribunal was provided with copies of the appellant’s 6 monthly contracts and documentation in relation to her pay. It was also confirmed by way of documentation shown to the Tribunal that the appellant had broken her service with the respondent from the years 1982 to 1989.
Determination
Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing it is clear that the appellant’s position as heretofore from 1990 to 2012 could not continue. Due to the fact that the incoming doctor only had a 6 month contract with the HSE this was the only type of contract of employment that the appellant could have been employed under subsequent to the transfer of undertakings taking place. This in fact is what transpired. In those circumstances the Tribunal finds that a genuine redundancy situation existed and the appellant is entitled to a lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 based on the following criteria:
Date of Birth:
Date of commencement of employment: 1 January 1990
Date of termination of employment: 31 May 2012
Gross weekly pay: €360.33
This award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)