UD1451/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM(S) OF:                                                                                                        CASE NO.

Áine Murphy   (claimant)                                            

                                                                                                                               UD1451/2013

Against

William Lowe (Dolphins Barn) Limited (respondent)

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Ms O. Madden B.L.

Members:     Mr. L. Tobin

                    Mr J. Flannery

heard this claim at Dublin on 10th October 2014

Representation:

_______________

Claimant(s) :              Mr Dave Moran, Mandate Trade Union, O'Lehane House, 9

                                    Cavendish Row, Dublin 1

Respondent(s) :          Mary Paula Guinness B.L. instructed by Ms. Emma Richmond, Whitney Moore & Keller, Solicitors, Wilton Park House, Wilton Place, Dublin 2

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

Summary of evidence

The Accountant for the respondent told the Tribunal that the company had been in financial difficulty for a number of years. The respondent is a family run public house and the claimant was the only non-family employee. The claimant’s employment commenced on 12^th November, 2002 and terminated by way of redundancy on 11^th September, 2013. Another employee had been made redundant in 2011 by way of voluntary redundancy. The Accountant told the Tribunal that the claimant argued that the takings were higher than what was reported in the company accounts but the discrepancy was related to the VAT amount and this was explained to the claimant.

The Director, TL, told the Tribunal that he had no option but to make the claimant redundant as she was the only non-family employee as the Director’s two sons also worked in the company. During the meetings with the claimant, the claimant suggested introducing food into the pub in order to attract business. The Director did not see this as a viable option. The claimant was offered a two day week with hours of work to be reduced from 40 hours per week to 19 hours per week (approx.), but this option did not financially suit the claimant. The accounts of the business had been shown to the claimant and her union representative. The claimant was not replaced following her redundancy.  

Under cross-examination, the Director stated that the reason why he did not take on board the claimant’s suggestion in relation to serving food was because it did not work in other public houses.

Giving evidence, the claimant told the Tribunal that her suggestions in relation to the business were not taken on board. A reduction in hours was not an option for the claimant. The claimant accepted the company was in financial difficulty and that redundancy may be a possibility. The claimant felt that the Director should have considered making the son/sons redundant instead of her as they were also employees of the company.

The claimant gave evidence of obtaining alternative employment on 1^st October, 2013.  

Determination

Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced over the course of the hearing, the Tribunal are not satisfied that the claimant in this instance has sufficiently made a case for unfair dismissal. Notwithstanding this, the claimant has failed to show any loss pursuant to Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissal Acts, 1977 to 2007, and therefore the claim fails.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)