EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Employee UD2298/2011
against
Employer
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
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 15 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:-
It was alleged that the claimant had been unfairly selected for redundancy having beenemployed from the end of April 2004 to late June 2011. He had worked as a machinist for a net weekly pay of some €504.00 and a gross weekly pay of €635.70.
The respondent contested the claim of unfair selection for redundancy.
Giving sworn testimony, the claimant said that he had got a letter about three weeks before his redundancy. He knew that redundancy was a possibility. He had been temporarily laid off in November 2010 for six months. He had been taken back from lay-off for six weeks in early May 2011.
The claimant spoke to EW (the respondent’s principal) who said that he did not know how long lay-offs would continue for. The claimant did not want to be in “limbo”. The respondent offered him redundancy but said “voluntary”. The claimant had said that it was not “voluntary”.
The claimant was made redundant and got the letter the next day. He got no prior notice. There had not been consultation or criteria. He did not challenge the respondent’s skills matrix. He received a statutory lump sum under nine thousand euro and no more.
The claimant had tried to mitigate his loss and told the Tribunal that he had documentation to attest to his efforts. He was now employed for a gross weekly pay just under five hundred euro. He now worked 37.5 hours per week as distinct from the 39 hours per week he had worked for the respondent.
Questioned by the Tribunal, the claimant said that he had done CNC computer-aided work but not fabrication. When it was put to him that he had accepted voluntary redundancy he replied that it had not been voluntary and that he had asked for his job back.
In re-examination the claimant said that he was back in his job six weeks when he was made redundant.
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 was on layoff for a period up to six weeks before he was made redundant.
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 doing the CNC machinist duties done by the claimant.
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 claimant was aware of the possibility of redundancy for some six months or more prior to the decision to make him redundant as he had been on layoff. 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)