EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD1716/2013
CLAIM(S) OF:
Richard O'Rourke
against
Advance Tyre Company Limited T/A Advance Pitstop
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. P. Clancy
Members: Mr. D. Hegarty
Mr. F. Dorgan
heard this claim in Limerick on 9 June 2015
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s):
Ms. Liz Murray for Mr. Gerard Kennedy, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Eden Quay, Dublin 1
Respondent(s):
Mr. Alan Haugh BL instructed by
A&L Goodbody, Solicitors,
IFSC, North Wall Quay, Dublin 1
instructed by
Mr. Joe McCormack, Advance Pitstop, HR Director,
Advance Tyre Co. Ltd., John F. Kennedy Drive, Dublin 12
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The claimant, who had long service in the automotive industry, was made redundant in late 2013. An unfair dismissal claim was lodged after the respondent had declined to enhance his redundancy package. The respondent had originally been a supplier of tyres but had diversified into other services such that it employed many apprentice and qualified mechanics. The claimant had not sought to acquire the skills of a mechanic and had ultimately been selected for redundancy after economic downturn had forced the respondent, after company-wide pay-cuts, to reduce its headcount.
Determination:
The Tribunal heard testimony from the respondent and the claimant. The claimant felt that he had provided loyal service over many years but did not assert that he had wanted to train to provide all of the respondent’s mechanical services. It was clear that he had wanted a greater redundancy package. He gave limited evidence of trying to mitigate his loss.
The Tribunal accepts that the respondent used a valid matrix to select the claimant for redundancy even if it did not engage in formal consultation with the claimant. Both sides seemed to know that the claimant’s selection for redundancy had substantial grounds. It is understandable that an employee might seek an enhanced redundancy package but the Tribunal cannot find that an employer is obliged to give an ex gratia payment.
Given that the claimant’s selection for redundancy, though unfortunate, was not unfair, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)