EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
James Ryan UD1638/2012
- claimant
against
Signature Flight Support Shannon Limited T/A Signature Flight Support
- respondent
and
Signature Flight Support Shannon Limited T/A Signature Flight Support
- respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. P. Clancy
Members: Mr. T. Gill
Ms. H. Henry
heard this claim in Ennis on 28 May 2014 and 16th September 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s): Mr James Nash, James M. Nash & Co. Solicitors,
Scariff, Co. Clare
Respondent(s): Mr. Tom Mallon BL instructed by Ms. Sarelle Buckley for Mr Seamus Given,
Arthur Cox, Solicitors, Earlsfort Centre, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2
Summary of Case
An unfair dismissal claim was brought to the Tribunal in respect of the employment by the respondent of an operations manager from June 2001 to November 2012. It was alleged that the claimant, having been unfairly selected for redundancy, had been constructively dismissed.
The respondent’s position was that there had been a restructuring by which two management positions were to become one but that the claimant had opted not to even apply for the new position such that COC (another manager) had applied for and taken up the position.
However, it was contended for the claimant that COC, having married SG, a senior figure in the respondent’s group, was facilitated in that there had been a camouflaged plan to ease the claimant aside and give the claimant’s position to COC. The claimant contended that the proposed interview process was a sham process and the odds of him succeeding in the process were stacked against him. He had considerably longer service than COC and believed that a last in first out (LIFO) selection procedure should have been used by the respondent. This was not accepted by the respondent.
Determination
Having heard sworn testimony, the Tribunal accepts that the respondent was entitled to restructure and rationalize its workplace and to identify the operational manager’s role for redundancy. This process identified a newly created position of Station Manager Ireland which encompassed elements and functions of the two candidates previous roles.
In that regard the Tribunal is satisfied that the procedures adopted by the respondent in inviting the two candidates (the claimant and COC) for an interview process to select one for the newly created position of Station Manager Ireland were not unfair.
The claimant’s evidence was that he refused to engage in this interview process as he believed the outcome was pre-ordained in favour of the other candidate. Yet he did not raise these concerns with the respondent in his correspondence prior to the proposed interview process and in which he stated that the only process that should apply was (LIFO).
The Tribunal does not accept that (LIFO) is the only criteria that should apply. The Tribunal finds that the refusal of the claimant to engage in the interview process was not a reasonable course of action and he failed to satisfy the Tribunal that his dismissal was unfair.
Accordingly his claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)