EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Employee - claimant UD424/2012
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: 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
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.
The claimant had a role a Health and Safety officer and that role was outsourced, he also worked in packaging which was outsourced. He was asked to consider becoming a sub-contractor because of his experience and long service with the company. TR said he never recommended redundancy for anyone, he changed the structure of the business but the claimant naturally asked if it was an option and TR asked payroll about his entitlement. He also told the Tribunal that a layer of management was taken out of the company and pay-cuts were introduced. As a supervisor the claimant enquired if redundancy was an option but later asked what his role would be if he took a €50 a week pay-cut.
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. SR said that he hoped the claimant would remain as a sub-contractor and retain his role as Health and Safety officer over the cluster (as that was his main role). The claimant said he didn’t know what to do and wanted to take time out. They finished on good terms but when SR rang him some time later for something the claimant said he “couldn’t help” and SR received the complaint re- Unfair Dismissal.
Claimant’s case:
The claimant gave evidence of his supervisory position and of being a Health and Safety officer. The health and safety role took three to four hours a week and was a job the claimant took seriously because of previous accidents at the company. He worked in the fire door area and it was busy more often than no but he had worked five weeks on three off and then a three day week.
At a meeting with TR in July he was told that Health and Safety was being outsourced. He was upset. He was asked to take a pay-cut or become a sub-contractor. It offered to take a €40 a week pay-cut but was told €75 or nothing. He never asked for redundancy but may have asked what his entitlement would be. His psychical health wasn’t good and maybe the SR got the idea he wanted to go. His only options were take a sub-contracting job or go. Neither was what he wanted.
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)