EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Employee UD697/2012
against
Employer
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 11th December 2013
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: Mark Murphy & Company, Solicitors, 99 O'Connell Street, Limerick
Respondent: Peninsula Business Services, Unit 3 Ground Floor, Block S,
East Point Business Park, Dublin 3
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Respondent’s case:
TR gave evidence of being asked to review the business in May 2011 and after a full and thorough investigation his recommendation was that if the company continued 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 met the claimant who worked in the fire door area and went through the possibility of creating his own company to produce the doors. The claimant was anxious and had a negative attitude to the suggestion. TR also asked the claimant to take a pay cut but he refused. At a meeting in July the claimant asked for his redundancy.
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 was a manager on the fire door line and was given an opportunity to set up part of the process on his own.
He was the first choice because of his experience and was spoken to over a period of 14 weeks, but he didn’t want it. The claimant refused to take a pay cut in line with others and there was bad feeling amongst his colleagues because of it. SR told him he had to come into line with the pay of others and the claimant refused, saying he’d leave if he had to take a pay-cut. That was the end of the discussions. He was served with his notice of redundancy.
Claimant’s case:
The claimant told the Tribunal that he was a supervisor of 15 people. He worked for the company for 24 years and felt he was treated badly in the end. He had taken a 10% pay-cut before TR came to the company and said he wouldn’t take a second one. He had no interest in taking over the management of the cluster area and felt he wasn’t qualified to do so. From his calculations over a three week period he considered he would be down as much as €1600. It was his own trial and he didn’t involve anyone else in it. He had no intention of leaving the company and would have been happy to consider any other options.
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)