EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Employee - claimant UD333/2012
against
Employer - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr J. Lucey
Members: Mr T. Gill
Mr F. Dorgan
heard this claim at Limerick on 10th December 2013
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: Mr Mark Murphy, Mark Murphy & Company, Solicitors, 99 O'Connell Street, Limerick
Respondent: Peninsula Business Services (Irl.) Limited, Unit 3, Ground Floor,
Block S, East Point Business Park, Dublin 3
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Respondent’s case:
KL auditor to the respondent business gave evidence of turnover and profit being down over two million euro by 2011. She advised the respondent of the need to review the entire business and an industrial consultant was taken on board.
TR gave evidence of being asked to review the business in May 2011 and after a full and thorough investigation he concluded that if the company continued operating as it was, it would/could not survive. His initial reaction was to close the company. On Friday 1st July TR met with staff in groups of nine or ten to brief them of the situation and advise them of the need for re-structuring. His recommendations included the possibility of cluster trading, setting up small individual manufacture’s to create a product, sharing the plant and overheads. Individuals would become sub-contractors. The main company could then concentrate on creating sales. TR did not recall meeting the claimant separately but he was asked to consider becoming a sub-contractor because of his experience and long service with the company. TR also told the Tribunal that a layer of management was taken out of the company and pay cuts were introduced.
SR managing director gave evidence of the company being in crises for the previous few years and living off resources. He had tried 3 day weeks, two weeks on, two weeks off and anything else he could think of. Because of Asian competition he told the Tribunal that it was costing more to produce materials that they were selling for. He also said that nobody was forced to do anything, there was a lot of dialogue and he was struggling to pay the next weeks wages. The claimant’s sales were down from 130k to 3k and the product he was making was discontinued. There was no question of him ever being replaced. Approximately 19 people were made redundant and the claimant was given the option of going to the outsourced area in a sub-contracting role in September 2011, which he did not accept.
Claimant’s case:
The claimant gave evidence of working in the In-frame area. He said it was busy and he was the only person doing the job. Meetings were held with employees and they were told things in the company were bad and that there would be redundancies.
He was given an option to take on the In- framing business either at home or at the factory, as a sub-contractor. He didn’t say he wouldn’t do it, SOC was to provide facts and figures but it never happened. The In-frame range was then discontinued and he received statutory redundancy.
Determination:
Having considered the evidence of the parties adduced at the hearing, the Tribunal accepts that the respondent had a need to effect redundancies for economic reasons. The claimant, along with all other employees had been placed on shorter working weeks and taken pay-cuts in an effort to reduce costs but to no avail. It is clear to the Tribunal that there was a fair or reasonable approach on behalf of the respondent in the time leading up to the redundancy. Meetings and discussions took place and work was outsourced.
Accordingly the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)