EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD693/2014
CLAIM OF:
Heidi Lammiman
against
Irish Seed Savers Association Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. Clancy
Members: Mr T. Gill
Ms H. Murphy
heard this claim at Ennis on 26th June 2015
Representation:
Claimant : In person
Respondent : Ms Sheila Lynch, Cashin & Associates, 3 Francis Street, Ennis Co Clare
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
The fact of dismissal was in dispute in this case. It was the claimant’s contention that she was constructively dismissed. The respondent maintained that the claimant employment ceased by way of redundancy.
Claimant’s Case
The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in 1999. Up to her cessation of employment she performed various roles ranging from gardening to administration to web design. Her employment was linked to a social welfare scheme and her weekly working hours fluctuated between nineteen and twenty four. During the course of her employment her domestic situation also changed. That change included a Family income support scheme. That scheme was designed for workers having at least three eight hours employment every fortnight.
Along with other staff the claimant met with the manager on 7 November 2013 and addressed the deteriorating financial position of the respondent. Prior to that meeting its directors decided to opt for fewer hours for staff rather than redundancies. Due to her personal circumstances the claimant felt unable to accept that option and informed her manager of that decision by text message the following day. That message gave notice of her cessation stating that ten hours a week was not financially viable. The claimant told the Tribunal she had no choice but to apply for redundancy which she received in early 2014.
Respondent’s Case
The respondent which has charitable status is run by a voluntary board and financed through state grants and sales revenue. It commissioned a report published in October 2013 on how best to manage its affairs in order to remain viable and open for business. Its business had been in decline for some time and despite cost cutting measures more action was needed to secure its future. At a board meeting on 5 November 2013 a decision was made to restructure and this included boosting its sales team but reducing the working hours of its employees. Those reductions together with possible redundancies were intended to be a temporary measure. The plan was to restore the hours when conditions allowed.
The respondent’s project manager said that consideration was given to reducing the claimant pay in lieu of reducing her hours but concluded that it was not right to tamper with her pay again. Up to the time she received a text from the claimant redundancy had not been offered to her. However, the respondent acceded to the claimant’s request for redundancy and facilitated a redundancy payment to her. This manager added that the claimant’s roles within the respondent continued and were distributed among some of the remaining staff. It also emerged that throughout 2014 all hours were reinstated or offered to the employees affected by that cutback the previous year.
A member of the board of directors involved in this process told the Tribunal that the respondent could not accede to the claimant’s request either to retain her hours at a reduced rate of pay.
Determination
Having heard and considered all the adduced evidence and documentation in this case the Tribunal cannot conclude that a dismissal, either direct or constructive occurred.
It follows, therefore, that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)