EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Anna Gowin
UD168/2013
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
MK Human Resources Limited T/A Temple Recruitment
and
MK Human Resources Limited T/A Temple Recruitment
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms N. O'Carroll-Kelly B.L.
Members: Mr. A. O'Mara
Mr F. Keoghan
heard this appeal at Dublin on 21st March 2014 and 29th July 2014
Representation:
_______________
Appellant: O'Hanrahan & Company, Solicitors, Lexington House,
71 Ballybough Road, Fairview, Dublin 3
Respondent: James H Murphy & Son, Solicitors, 17 Francis Street,
Dundalk, Co Louth
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This case came before the Tribunal by way of an employee appealing the recommendation of a Rights Commissioner under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, ref: r-124638-ud-12/RG.
At the 1st day of hearing another named respondent RA were let out of the proceedings based on the fact that the Tribunal found the claim against them to be statute barred. The matter proceeded against this named respondent only.
The issue in this case was whether or not the claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Acts.
Background
The respondent is a recruitment agency supplying employees to various employers. The claimant worked for RA (they being the end user) 2011 and went on maternity leave in August 2011. Her maternity leave ran to February 2012. GD gave evidence for the respondent saying that she spoke to the claimant in her offices on 27th January 2012. The claimant asked if her job was still available and GD told her it was but she needed an exact date of return and she would be able to place her. The claimant told her that she was looking for other jobs but would let her know. In March the claimant rang looking for references and a P45. That was the last thing he respondent heard until the claim before the Tribunal. The claimant denied calling to the office and said she was in Poland on the date of the alleged meeting. From conversations with a colleague and her husband (who also worked for the respondent) she heard that people were let go at the end of October 2011 and there would be no job for her. She contacted C.I.C. who advised her that her job was protected while on maternity leave. She said that GD told her there was no position when she rang her in January 2012, but there may be something in the future.
Determination:
The respondent adduced evidence that just before the claimants maternity leave they made contact with each other. How contact was made was an issue for the parties, however the Tribunal are satisfied that in January 2012 the respondent and the claimant spoke to one another in relation to the claimants return to work. The respondent stated that all it needed was a return to work date in order to place the claimant. They stated that there is always work available. The evidence given by GD supports that. The respondent company grew from 90 in 2011 to 230 in 2014. The claimant stated that she was informed by GD that no positions were available at that time. GD stated that the claimant was an excellent employee and to date there is still a position for her with the respondent.
The Tribunal prefers the respondent’s evidence and find that no redundancy situation existed at the material time or at any time within the respondent company, therefore no unfair selection situation could be established in those circumstances. The Tribunal uphold the decision of the Rights Commissioner.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)