EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
UD455/2012
Employee - appellant
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. Browne
Mr. F. Dorgan
heard this claim at Waterford on 9th January 2014
Representation:
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr. Frank Halley Solicitor, MM Halley & Son
“Presentation House”, Slievekeale road, Waterford
Background:
The claimant was employed as a senior barman with the respondent hotel from circa 17th April 2010 to 22nd February 2012.
It was the respondent’s case that business in the food and beverage area had suffered dramatically as a result of the economic downturn. The respondent needed to cut costs in order to ensure the survival of the hotel. There were four full-time bar staff and the cost cutting measures affected all four. Two of these who had longer service than the claimant and the other one had about two to three weeks’ less service than the claimant. Of those with longer service than the claimant, one was now doing the role of night porter and the other was doing housekeeping duties. The employee with slightly less service than the claimant had been doing reception duties for some months before the claimant was made redundant and at which time she had requested that she be allowed to take over reception duties.
The respondent informed the claimant on 15th February 2012 that he was being made redundant.
The claimant, who said he was very happy working in the respondent hotel, did not wish to lose his job. He accepted that there was a need for cost cutting but put forward to the respondent alternatives to redundancy such as a reduction in hours to 20 hours per week, a pay reduction or to move to another department of the hotel. It was the claimant’s case that his proposals were not considered. The claimant’s evidence was that MB told him that management said “no” to his alternative proposals to redundancy. The claimant told the Tribunal that the respondent could have transferred him to laundry or to reception and reduced his bar hours.
However, the respondent said that the two employees doing the laundry did it for both the respondent hotel and another hotel that it was a specialised task requiring skill and the claimant would have needed to be trained in on the very expensive machine used for the laundry. Regarding the reception duties the respondent said that the employee doing the reception had been there for a number of months, was undertaking courses and was doing the job satisfactorily.
Determination:
Having considered the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal accepts that the respondent had a need to effect redundancies due to a downturn in its business. The Tribunal finds that the claimant accepted that there was a genuine redundancy when he put forward to the respondent alternatives to redundancy.
The Tribunal finds that the respondent did consider alternatives to redundancies when it transferred other employees to work in different areas of the hotel as opposed to making them redundant. The Tribunal further finds that it was not possible for the respondent to save the jobs of all four bar staff. The Tribunal does not in the circumstances consider it unreasonable for the respondent not to have transferred the claimant to laundry or reception.
The Tribunal thus finds that there was a genuine redundancy, that there was nothing unfair in the selection of the claimant for redundancy, that the respondent acted fairly in effecting the redundancy save for the fact that it would have been preferable and more appropriate to have informed the claimant in writing of the fact of the redundancy. However, the Tribunal finds that this was not done in bad faith and was not in the particular circumstances of this case fatal.
Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)