EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Joan Waters UD41/2013
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
Joan Waters
-v-
Limerick Social Services Council Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. P. Wallace
Members: Mr. T. Gill
Ms H. Kelleher
heard this appeal at Limerick on 21st January 2015
Representation:
Appellant: Mr. Gerard Kennedy, Siptu, Liberty Hall, Eden Quay, Dublin 1
Respondent: Ms Muireann McEnery, Ibec, Ibec Mid-West, Gardner House,
Bank Place, Charlotte Quay, Limerick
Background:
This case is before the Tribunal by way of an employee appealing a Recommendation, ref: r-124814-ud-12, under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.
The Respondent is a social service provider which provides services such as a Crèche, parental support, counselling, family advocacy, pre-school services and services for the elderly. It was initially set up to provide post natal facilities for women and expanded over the years to provide more support roles. It is primarily funded by the HSE. The Claimant was employed as a support staff worker from June 2006 to July 2012.
The Respondent had to effect redundancies. The Respondent contends that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed, that the Claimant was fairly selected for redundancy. The Claimant contends that she was unfairly selected for redundancy.
Respondent’s case:
The Tribunal heard evidence from (BR) who is the general manager of the Respondent. He outlined the history of the Respondent. The Respondent relied on funding from the HSE and relied on church gate collections.
Sometime towards the end of 2011 they commissioned an independent consultant, (Mo’S) to carry out a review of the services. As part of the process Mo’S met with two individuals (LK and EK) to “gain additional insight into the activities” of the Respondent. An e-mail dated 24th January 2012 was sent to all staff advising that MO’S was to meet the individuals and that all staff were invited to attend and if they could not attend they could e-mail comments to LK. The report was issued in February 2012. The report was presented to the directors who instructed that a subcommittee review the report and report back in six weeks.
A letter dated 27th March 2012 was opened to the Tribunal. The letter invited the Claimant and all staff to a meeting to be held on 30th March 2012. The meeting was to brief staff on the report and the discussions with the directors and the future plan for the services.
The subcommittee report outlined the closure of a certain part of the service (known as AH) which was a housing apartment facility for service users. The AH was for pre-natal and post-natal users. The HSE did agree for funding to be extended for AH until the last user left.
The witness explained to the Tribunal that the Board of directors decided to close AH and make the staff redundant. The staff were told that all efforts had been exhausted to secure funding and to secure jobs and to see if they could obtain other roles to protect all staff.
The Claimant was sent a letter to outline her redundancy. She was allowed to appeal the decision which she did. The decision was made to uphold redundancy.
Claimant’s case:
The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant. The Claimant outlined that she was a fully qualified social care worker, and has a level 8 honours degree.
The Claimant told the Tribunal that she was aware of the report of Mo’S. She did attend the meeting of 30th March 2012. She was not aware about the subcommittee nor did the subcommittee engage with her/ the employees. She became aware of the redundancy when the general manager (BR) phoned her on 30th March 2012. He told her that her services would no longer be required as of June 2012 and that it was as a result of the closure of AH.
She was not given an option of re-deployment. They did not give her an option to contribute alternatives to redundancy. In the appeal process voluntary redundancy was not introduced by the Respondent. Regarding the position of the Respondent regarding qualifications she is a qualified Social care worker. Regarding an alternative “active link job” she was not made aware of it nor given access to it.
In cross examination the Claimant clarified that she was aware of the subcommittee but had no interaction with it. She also agreed that another worker that had been kept on or that had been given a position was more qualified than her and had experience of the particular role.
The Claimant gave evidence as to her loss.
Determination:
Having heard all of the evidence adduced the Tribunal determines that there was a genuine redundancy situation. The Respondent’s procedure was fair, transparent and inclusive of the employees. The claimant was not treated any differently than the other employees and she was not treated unfairly. The Tribunal upholds the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, ref: r-124814-ud-12; the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)