EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Employee UD1712/2011
MN1768/2011
WT681/2011
against
Employer
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. D. Donovan BL
Members: Mr. J. Browne
Mr. F. Dorgan
heard this case in Wexford on 5th March 2013
and 8th May 2013
and 15th January 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s):
Mr. Paul Hutchinson BL instructed by
Sean Ormonde & Co., Solicitors,
Suite 9, The Atrium, Canada Street, Waterford
Respondent(s):
Mr John Bolger, HR Consultant,
2 Tonduff Close, Green Park,
Walkinstown, Dublin 12
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The claims under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005, and the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, were not prosecuted but withdrawn at hearing.
The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim alleging that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy. His employment with the respondent began in April 2007 and ended at the start of July 2011. His gross weekly pay was €544.05.
The respondent disputed that the claimant had been unfairly selected for redundancy, saying that the respondent had done its best and that a redundancy payment had been paid.
Giving sworn testimony, the claimant said that he had been a machine operator. It was acknowledged that there had been a downturn in 2011 but it was alleged that there had been an absence of consultation with him. There had been previous redundancies but it was not accepted that a redundancy notice had been put up.
It was alleged that some four other employees had less service than the claimant. The claimant told the Tribunal that he had tried to make representations to management regarding alternatives to redundancy. He had got a good reference, a statutory payment of just over five thousand euro and a payment of seven thousand euro. The claimant had tried to mitigate his financial loss but had come across no jobs relating to steel.
In cross-examination the claimant said that as well as shot blasting he had also done forklift and lorry driving. He againdenied that a redundancy notice had been posted up.
When it was put to the claimant that fabrication was a trade which involved an apprenticeship the claimant accepted that he had not done it but said that he could do it.
Determination
Having considered the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal finds that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that such redundancy was a genuine redundancy situation. This is supported by the fact that the claimant put forward to the respondent alternative proposals to redundancy.
The Tribunal finds that there was nothing unfair about the selection of the claimant for redundancy in that the respondent in an effort to secure the survival of the company retained the skilled workers who were able to do fabrication in addition to the shot blasting done by the claimant. The Tribunal does not accept that the claimant was capable of doing fabrication which is a skill acquired after a period of apprenticeship.
Regarding the procedures the Tribunal finds that whereas it is always preferable if employees are given as much notice as possible of a proposed redundancy and selection criteria discussed with them in the circumstances of the instant case the Tribunal finds that the respondent acted reasonably and in good faith when effecting the redundancy of the claimant.
Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2007,fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)