UD30/2012

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:                                                                                                 CASE NO.

                                                                                                                        UD30/2012

Mairead Birmingham   -     Claimant

Against

Sparkglade Limited     -     Respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:       Ms P. McGrath B.L.

Members:        Mr E. Handley

                        Mr. S. O'Donnell

heard this claim at Dublin on 14th May 2013 and 25^th February 2014

Representation:

Claimant:         Ms. Emma Coffey, Smyth & Son, Solicitors,

                         30 Magdalene Street, Drogheda Co. Louth

Respondent:     Mr. David Farrell, IR/HR Executive, IBEC,

                         Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Determination

The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of the two days of evidence. The employer herein is a limited liability company operating a number of franchised retail outlets. In and around 2009 the company was invited to take on a retain unit in Bayside in Sutton. This unit had a pre-existing staff of which the claimant was one. The claimant had been an employee on this site since September of 1998 and was, in fact, a manager within this store at the time the then respondent company took over the helm.

The Tribunal accepts the largely unchallenged evidence tendered by the respondent that the Bayside unit was not operating within a comfortable profit level.   For a number of years after 2009 margins were very tight and by 2011 the respondent employer was anxious to try and enhance the company’s financial position. To this end, the respondent had to consider the possibility of making redundancies. A study of remuneration costs was believed by this employer to be way too high and that the preferred option was to make five redundancies rather than cut the hourly rate, an act already implemented in the workplace in the recent past. In his evidence, on behalf of the company, Mr JP indicated that a decision was made to try and reduce the annual wage bill by €120,000.00.   It was decided that the only way of achieving this target was by making at least five persons redundant.

In these circumstances the respondent does not appear to have realised that the company had not the critical numbers for a collective redundancy and whether Mr. JP did gather the staff together on the or about the 18th of July 2011 for the purpose of informing the staff that redundancies would have to be made, he did not make known to the staff that he had certain obligations to fulfill such as notifying the Minister and engaging in a consultative process. It is noted that the Minister was notified on or about the 19^th of July on advice from IBEC.

The claimant was informed that a number of redundancies were to be made in the workplace. The claimant was offered alternative employment but was unhappy with the hours involved and ultimately the claimant herein requested voluntary redundancy. The Tribunal finds this employee was anxious to obtain the redundancy and there was no unfair dismissal in this instance. Therefore her claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)