EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Maura Hughes, - claimant UD438/2012
RP334/2012
MN359/2012
against
John Dillon Leetch T/A Dillon-Leetch & Comerford Solicitors, - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Dr. A. Courell B.L.
Members: Mr. D. Morrison
Mr M. McGarry
heard this claim at Castlebar on 5th November 2013 and 11th March 2014
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Ms Faye Revington B.L. instructed by Mr Conor Quinn,
John J Quinn & Co., Solicitors, Earl Street, Longford
Respondent(s) :Mr. Alan Ledwith B.L., 4-5 Mary Street, Galway
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 was withdrawn by the claimant. In circumstances where the dismissal was in dispute the claimant’s evidence was heard first.
Summary of Evidence
The claimant was employed by the respondent as a receptionist in January 2008. She was contracted to work five days per week. In February 2011 she returned to work following maternity leave. At a meeting with the respondent she was informed that her hours would be reduced to two days per week on a temporary basis up to August 2011. The claimant agreed to the reduced hours as it was only temporary. A letter from the respondent dated the 7 February 2011 setting out that arrangement was opened to the Tribunal. Soon after the claimant learned that she was pregnant and was due to commence her maternity leave on the 28 July 2011. She arranged a meeting with the respondent which took place on the 21 June 2011 where she was informed that if the current economic climate continued there would be no job for her to return to following her maternity leave. The claimant was aware of a restructuring within the business at that time but was shocked by what she was told on the 21 June. The respondent suggested she use her time off to up-skill and retrain but did not offer to pay for any training. Over the course of her maternity leave she met with the respondent in November 2011 to clear up an issue following receipt of a letter from the Revenue Commissioners regarding her employment ending. In preparing to return to work she met the respondent again on the 18 January 2012 and her return date was agreed. She returned to work on the 8 February 2012 and was informed that her hours were reduced to one day per week due to the recession. The claimant advised the respondent of her entitlements under the Maternity Protection legislation.
The claimant denied that any alternative full time role was offered to her when she met with the respondent. She was only offered the possibility of one, two or three days per week as an assistant to the probate division of the business and was told the position of receptionist was no longer an option.
The respondent explained the restructuring which took place in the firm at a time when the downturn had a serious affected on the business with less work. In addition a partner of the business retired and a new partnership was formed in and around November 2011.
The respondent’s evidence was that at the meeting on the 21 June 2011 in advance of the claimant commencing maternity leave he explained to her that the exclusive position of receptionist would no longer continue. Reception duties would be shared out among the secretaries on a rota basis. His comments regarding up-skilling were made in order for the claimant to move into other areas of the business on her return from maternity leave. In his discussions with the claimant in early 2012 he again explained that the position of receptionist was no longer an option and that he was assigning her to the probate division of the business. This position was defined and initially the claimant agreed but later at the second meeting in early 2012 rejected the offer. The respondent had no further direct communication with the claimant after February 2012.
The evidence of the office manager was that she was in charge of the probate division and the respondent consulted with her on assigning the claimant to the probate area. The witness could not recall when she was consulted on this and had agreed this was a good idea. She had looked forward to the claimant joining the division as it was a busy area within the business.
Determination
The Tribunal has carefully considered all of the evidence presented to it. The claimant went on maternity leave in July, 2011 and when she returned to work on the 8 February 2012, she was offered a different role on the basis of one day per week. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the claimant that she did not agree to the proposed changes to the terms and conditions of her employment. Redundancy was not offered to the claimant. Indeed, even if it was the case that the claimant’s position had been made redundant, the evidence before the Tribunal was not sufficient for it to determine that the claimant had been fairly selected for redundancy. The claimant never returned to her employment following maternity leave and she was not contacted by the respondent again after the 8th February, 2012.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has concluded that the respondent dismissed the claimant from her employment and that this dismissal was unfair. Having considered the evidence of loss and mitigation, the Tribunal award the claimant the sum of €9,360.00 by way of compensation under the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1997 to 2007.
Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the claimant is entitled to €780.00 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employments Acts 1973 to 2005.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)