EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
UD1345/2012
Employee - claimant
against
Employer - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms D. Donovan B.L.
Members: Mr J. Horan
Mr A. Butler
heard this claim at Carlow on 17th December 2013
Representation:
Claimant: Mr Gerry Meaney, Gerald Meaney Solicitors,
17a William Street, Kilkenny
Respondent: Mr. Niall Dodd B.L. instructed by Brody & Co. Solicitors,
35 Dublin Street, Carlow
Summary of evidence:
The respondent is an accounting practice. The claimant was employed from 1999 in the role of receptionist/secretary. She was the only employee in such position in the company and she carried out the usual duties associated with this role.
A year or so into the employment the claimant began to carry out some book-keeping work and she was trained by an accounts technician in this work. Initially the book-keeping work was only in relation to the respondent’s business and entailed using an accounts package to enter payments and cheque listings as well as reconciling the bank account each month. Over time the claimant assisted with clients’ paperwork including putting cheques and invoices in order for VAT returns, carrying out some client payroll and credit control. The claimant carried out payroll for three clients which entailed entering hours, calculating pay, creating payslips and issuing wages. It was accepted by a director of the company that the claimant carried out a modest amount of fee-earning book-keeping work. This work was carried out under supervision and was only for about one hour a day. A qualified employee now carries out this work in about 2.5 hours.
At the height of the business in 2007 the company employed 11 accounting staff. Between 2007 and the time the claimant’s employment ended in March 2012 there was a reduction of five accounting staff. In addition the amount of typing work and levels of incoming post decreased. The claimant returned from maternity leave in October 2011. During the time of her maternity leave she was not replaced in her position and her work was dispersed amongst the other staff members.
On 16th March 2012, one of the directors (TH) met with the claimant and explained that the firm could no longer afford the role of full-time receptionist/secretary. An offer of reduced hours was made to the claimant. This alternative to redundancy was unsatisfactory to the claimant as it was an offer of ten hours over five days. The claimant queried if the hours could be worked over a period of two or three days but the director explained to her that this was not possible as the business required the hours to have a daily element around the incoming post.
On 20th March 2012 the claimant confirmed to the director that the alternative offered was not viable for her as the way the hours were distributed had eligibility implications for unemployment benefits. In such circumstances the director confirmed that the claimant’s position was redundant. This was later confirmed to the claimant in writing and her employment subsequently came to an end. The claimant disputed that a genuine redundancy situation existed. The claimant gave evidence of loss and efforts to mitigate that loss.
The company advertised for an intern in June 2012. The intern position arose in circumstances where the director completed a qualification in insolvency. This created some work for the business by way of liquidations. In any event no suitable candidate applied. Two more accounting staff have left the company since the claimant’s employment ended but not by reason of redundancy. An accounts technician has since been employed two days a week to perform work on a specialised payroll system. It was refuted by the respondent that the new staff member has an overlap of duties with those which the claimant carried out.
Determination:
Having considered the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Tribunal accepts that the respondent could no longer afford to employ a receptionist but rather needed to focus on retaining fee-earning staff in order to secure the viability of the practice. The Tribunal further finds that the “accountancy” work done by the claimant was in main in the nature of data entry and administrative and could be done by employees who could also do actual fee-earning accountancy work. In these circumstances the Tribunal finds that the dismissal of the claimant was by reason of redundancy and that such redundancy was a genuine redundancy which was effected in a reasonable and fair manner by the respondent. Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)