EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD1167/2014
CLAIM OF:
Sigita Brazaite -Claimant
against
Irish Yogurts Limited -Respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal (Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms K. T. O'Mahony B.L.
Members: Mr. D. Hegarty
Ms H. Kelleher
heard this claim at Cork on 23rd October 2015
Representation: Claimant: In person
Respondent: Ms Eileen Hayes solicitor PJ O'Driscolls Solicitors, 41 South Main Street, Bandon, Co Cork
Summary of Evidence
The respondent produces and packages dairy products. The respondent's managing director (MD) set up the company in 1994 and it currently has 160 employees. This was the first redundancy in the company
In 2013 there was huge volatility in the dairy ingredients market worldwide and there was a 30% increase in prices. All costs were examined and it was found that labour was the respondent's greatest cost. To become more cost efficient the respondent decided to introduce two automated lines and sleeving machines.
A consultation process began on 13 September 2013. At a meeting with the employees MD explained the requirement to remain competitive, the decision to invest in automation and notified the employees that there would result in some redundancies in the sleeving department but explained that any alternative positions available would be offered to them first. The nature of the work in the dispatch department, including that it involved some heavy lifting, was discussed at this meeting.
The introduction of the sleeving machine gave rise to three positions, including the claimant's, being made redundant in late February 2014. Selection was on a last-in-first-out (LIFO) basis.
However, in April 2014 the respondent secured a large contract for products and needed extra staff. The employees who had been made redundant in late February 2014 were offered the new jobs. The offer of re-employment was communicated to the claimant on three occasions through her sister (LX), who is also an employee of the respondent. The claimant was not interested in the new position because it was not permanent. The supervisor of the sleeving department confirmed to the Tribunal that she was present when at least one of these phone calls was made to the claimant. The boyfriend of another one of her sisters was employed in the position and is still there.
Determination:
Due to automation in the sleeving department the requirement for manual input declined resulting in three redundancies. Selection for redundancy was on a last-in-first-out (LIFO) basis and the claimant fell within this group. Accordingly, her dismissal was fair.
The Tribunal accepts on the balance of probability that the claimant had been offered one of the positions that became available in April 2014 but she had declined the offer.
The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)