UD395/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM(S) OF:                                                                                               CASE NO.

Derek Goldbey

- claimant                                                                                                        UD395/2013

Against

C & F Tooling Limited

- respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Ms. C. Egan B.L.

Members:     Mr. W. O'Carroll

Mr. T. Gill

heard this claim at Galway on 29th August 2014

Representation:

Claimant(s) : Mr. Patrick Higgins and Ms. Fiona Lydon, Keane Solicitors,

         Hardiman House, Eyre Square, Galway

Respondent(s) : Mr. Thomas Harrington,

                         C & F Tooling Limited, Coshla, Athenry, County Galway

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Preliminary Issue

At the commencement of the hearing the respondent’s representative raised a preliminary issue submitting that the claim was not properly before the Tribunal as the claimant had not filed the application within the statutory time period. He submitted that the claimant failed to furnish his correct address on the application and referenced SI 286/1977 - Unfair Dismissals (claims and appeals) Regulations, 1977. The Tribunal noted that the application was received on the 5 March 2013 and a second application including the claimant’s address was furnished on the 11 April 2013. The date of dismissal was the 14 September 2012 and the Tribunal is satisfied that the claim is properly before it.

Summary of Evidence

The respondent company is a sheet metal company producing products for industries such as I.T, refrigeration and air-conditioning. The plant manager told the Tribunal that the claimant was based at a client’s premises in the Galway city area. Following an accident at that site in May 2010 the claimant was assigned to work at the plant in Athenry. The witness stated that the claimant approached him and asked to be considered in the next round of redundancies approximately three months prior to his employment ending. The next round of redundancies was in 2012. The plant manager was also aware that the claimant was in his late 60’s and the work was difficult. On the 31 August 2012 he informed the claimant that he was selected for redundancy. The claimant appeared shocked but relieved when he learned of his redundancy package. At that time there was a reduction in the amount of work at the plant. The witness denied that the claimant’s redundancy was related to the accident at the client’s premises or to a personal injuries claim being brought by the claimant.

The pay roll manager gave evidence of calculating the claimant’s redundancy payment and other entitlements. He was instructed to do this by JF a company director. He had no knowledge of any personal injuries claim by the claimant. The claimant signed his redundancy documents on the 7 September 2012 without any objection or complaint.

The claimant gave evidence of commencing employment in September 2000. He worked at a site in Galway city up to May 2010 when he had an accident. Following a period out of work he returned and was assigned to work at the plant. Another employee had taken up his stock taking role at the Galway city site. He was happy to work at the plant and worked in a number of roles. He never sought redundancy and wished to continue in employment in order to go on supporting his family. On the day he was informed of his redundancy he was offered no explanation. The plant manager asked if something had happened at the site in Galway city. The claimant did not recall signing the redundancy documentation but conceded that it was his signature on the form RP50.

Determination

The Tribunal, having considered the evidence adduced and the submission in this case, finds that while there was a redundancy element in the circumstances before it, the Tribunal is obliged to have regard to all the circumstances. There is an onus on the respondent to show that a genuine redundancy situation existed. The claimant did not receive notice in writing of the proposed redundancy. There was no evidence of a consultation and selection process. No alternative employment was offered to the claimant. The person responsible for the redundancy decision did not give evidence. There was no evidence of a dramatic change in the workplace. The respondent continues its business in the manufacture of sheet metal products. The Tribunal notes that the claimant instituted personal injury proceedings against a client of the respondent, at whose facility the claimant had worked. The claimant’s solicitor wrote on the 22 August 2012 requesting inspection facilities at the aforementioned facility. The Tribunal further note that the claimant was informed of his redundancy on the 31August 2012.

The Tribunal finds that the respondent acted unreasonably and finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal awards the claimant €5000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, taking the redundancy payment into account.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)