EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Karen Duffy - claimant UD1387/2012
Against
NUI Galway - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms C. Egan B L
Members: Mr T. Gill
Ms H. Henry
heard this claim at Galway on 8th April 2014 and 18th June 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s) : Ms Martina Weir, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Eden Quay, Dublin 1
Respondent(s) : Mr. John Brennan, IBEC, West Regional Office, Ross House,
Victoria Place, Galway
Summary of Case
The respondent is a third level institution. The claimant commenced employment in January 2005 and was employed as GMP Facility Manager at the Regenerative Medicine Institute (REMEDI). She was employed under a contract of indefinite duration and had responsibility for managing all aspects of the GMP cell manufacturing facility at the University. She earned a salary of circa €57,000 per annum and her position was funded by Science Foundation of Ireland. The main focus of her work centred around regenerative medicine.
The Tribunal heard evidence from the Human Resources Manager of employee relations that the University employs 400 staff directly in research. The research facilities in the University increased significantly in the years of the economic boom through EU and Government funding. In 2011 the University engaged four consultants as part of a licence project plan with an aim to take the University to the production stage of clinical trials. In order to get to production stage the University has to receive a licence from the Irish Medicines Board. The report of the consultants recommended that the University hire a suitably qualified person who had previous experience in obtaining such a licence as such individuals would not be available within the University.
Accordingly the University advertised for the position of Operations Manager at the Centre for Cell Manufacturing Ireland. A copy of the advertisement containing the key responsibilities and requirements of the position was opened to the Tribunal and the salary for the position was over €89,000 per annum. The position was advertised internationally and was filled for a short period of time. However, the person who filled the position left the post and the position was re-advertised with an increased salary of €100,000. The position was filled for a second time and remains occupied by that incumbent. The Tribunal was told that both incumbents of the position were hired from outside Ireland. The University has subsequently obtained a licence for clinical trials and production from the Irish Medicines Board.
The hiring of the Operations Manager by the University had implications for the claimant as it was claimed that her role was subsumed by the new position and the claimant was informed that her position was being made redundant. The Human Resources Manager gave evidence that the heads of all of the University’s departments were contacted to ascertain if any vacancies existed within their departments. The objective of this was to establish if any suitable alternative employment could be offered to the claimant. Ultimately, no suitable alternative employment existed and the claimant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy on 31 May 2012. The Tribunal heard evidence that the claimant did apply for a number of positions within the University prior to her redundancy but she was unsuccessful in those applications.
The Tribunal heard direct evidence from the claimant that she was employed on a number of fixed term contracts until January 2009 when she was offered and accepted a contract of indefinite duration. She was employed in a permanent full-time capacity managing the GMP facility in the facilities and equipment department of the University. She told the Tribunal that she worked closely with the quality manager and the production manager both of whom reported to her on an informal basis. She was placed on temporary lay-off for the month of January 2012 and resumed her duties in February 2012. She was never given any reason for this period of lay-off.
The claimant gave evidence that she received a “glowing report” from her supervisor in her Performance Management Development System (PMDS) review. She was heavily involved in the preparation of the audit carried out by the consultants with the view to obtaining the manufacturing licence. She told the Tribunal that this audit identified minor deficiencies in her facilities and equipment department while major deficiencies were identified in the quality and production departments.
The claimant gave further evidence that following the completion of the audit both managers of the quality and production departments, respectively, “disappeared for a number of weeks”. She did not know of their whereabouts as there was nobody to enquire from. The claimant began to feel ostracised in her workplace and told the Tribunal that she was not invited to two social functions in or around August 2011. When she enquired from her supervisor as to why she was not invited, she was told that “she should have been”. The claimant was then informed that she was going to be made redundant. She wrote to the Human Resources Manager by way of letter dated 28 May 2012. In this letter the claimant raised a number of grievances stating that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy as the work that comprises her role was still ongoing and her role continues to exist. She gave evidence that facility personnel with less service were retained in employment while she was made redundant. The quality manager and production manager were also retained and continue to be employed by the respondent.
The claimant received a reply to her aforementioned letter by way of letter dated 22 June 2012. She told the Tribunal that the reply did not explain the reasons for her selection for redundancy and did not address the grievances that she had raised. She did not believe that a full investigation had been carried out and described the reply as “wishy/washy”. The reasons for her redundancy were never discussed with her and no consultation ever occurred in relation to her redundancy. The Tribunal heard further evidence in relation to her efforts to mitigate her loss and her current employment status.
Determination
The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, finds that the claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy. The respondent acted unreasonably in that there was no proper consultation or discussion with the claimant. The claimant’s letter of 28 May 2012 to the respondent, in response to the redundancy offer, was not addressed and no investigation of the grievances raised therein was conducted.
The GMP Facility at REMEDI continues to operate. The work, which comprised the claimant’s role, continues to exist. Personnel who possessed shorter terms of service, and personnel who were employed after the claimant’s dismissal, were retained. The respondent failed to justify why the claimant was selected for redundancy.
In the light of all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed from her employment and awards compensation in the sum of €30,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)