EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
John Quirke UD1626/2012
- Claimant
against:
Pestguard Limited
- Respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. J. Lucey
Members: Mr. P. Casey
Mr. D. McEvoy
heard this claim at Clonmel on 8th September 2014
Representation:
Claimant: Barry Murphy, Eugene Carey & Co., Solicitors, Courthouse Chambers,
Mallow, Co. Cork
Respondent: Mr S. Hanaphy BL instructed by:
Lyons Kenny, Solicitors, 57, Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin 2
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Background:
The claimant commenced employment initially as a Sales Representative for the respondent pest control business in January. The respondent company was based in County Dublin and the claimant worked in the Munster region. He, and other staff, seldom attended the Dublin office, only once or twice a year.
There were few problems with the claimant’s performance; however, he was requested to attend four meetings. The first two meetings had no major issues involved. The third meeting took place on the 11th March 2011 regarding the quality of his work. (Notes of this meeting were submitted to the Tribunal). A fourth meeting was held on the 19th May 2011, again regarding the claimant’s performance and a health and safety issue. The claimant was absent on a period of certified sick leave until March 2012.
In 2009 the respondent lost a major contract with a major Irish retailer and business began to decline over time. Having scrutinised the company financial situation staff were given two options and a unanimous decision was made. A staff member was selected for redundancy, who had more service than the claimant at the time. This staff members workload was distributed between three other members of staff that fully qualified and certified from Cork University.
In 2012 a management decision was made to make a further four staff redundant. One from the East Region, one from the North Region, one from the Washroom Services section and one from the South.
In the South Region there were three staff member - the claimant, SD and KOC. It was decided the claimant would be made redundant as the other two members of staff were qualified to carry out field biology audits. The claimant did not have these qualifications.
The claimant was asked to attend a meeting in Dublin on the 4th May 2012 where he was informed of management’s decision to make him redundant. He was given two weeks’ notice. The claimant accepted the redundancy but did not work after this date.
Respondent’s Position:
The Managing Director (MD), his son the National Services Manager and the company Accountant gave evidence.
Evidence was adduced concerning the downturn in business and the company’s financial status. It was adduced in evidence that the claimant was given no prior knowledge of the content of the meeting of the 4th May 2012. He did not have anyone in attendance with him. (No minutes of this meeting were available for the Tribunal). MD informed the Tribunal that no alternative position was available to offer to the claimant and his position had been made redundant.
Claimant’s Position:
The claimant gave evidence. He stated to the Tribunal that he had worked hard for the respondent, often long days. He said that he had attended meetings in the past but there had been no major issues. On the 1st May 2012 he received a call from MD to attend a meeting in head office the following Friday. He asked what it concerned but was told he could not tell him.
On the 4th May 2012 he attended the meeting with MD who informed him he was to be made redundant due to a downturn in business. He was given two weeks’ notice of his redundancy but he did not work after this meeting.
The claimant gave evidence of loss.
Determination:
The Tribunal have carefully considered the sworn evidence and submission adduced in the matter. It appears from the company’s financial reports that business had declined and a reduction in costs had to be made. In respect of the claimant’s employment it transpired that his position was to be made redundant and the Tribunal finds that this indeed was a true situation. However, the respondent was procedurally incorrect in carrying out this process in respect of the claimant. There was no consultation process, no prior notification was given to the claimant regarding the meeting concerning his redundancy, he was not informed he could bring someone with him and no alternative positions within the company were explored by management.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awards him the sum of €5,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)