EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD554/2014
CLAIM(S) OF:
Vitalij Pacikin - claimant
Against
Shay Murtagh (Precast) Limited - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. P. O'Leary B L
Members: Mr P. Pierson
Mr P. Trehy
heard this claim at Mullingar on 27th October 2015
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Mr. Richard Grogan, Richard Grogan & Associates Solicitors, 16 & 17 College Green, Dublin 2
Respondent(s) : Mr Gerard Groarke B.L. instructed by Ms Lucy Boyle, Tormeys Solicitors, Castle St, Athlone, Co Westmeath
Summary of Evidence
At the commencement of the hearing the respondent’s representative raised a preliminary matter regarding the statutory time limit for filing a claim under the Unfair Dismissal Acts. It was submitted that the claim was filed outside the time limit.
The Tribunal considered the preliminary matter and is satisfied that the claimant’s employment ended on the 13 September 2013 and the claim was filed with the Work Place Relations Services on the 13 March 2014. The claim was filed within the statutory six month time limit and the Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The respondent company manufactures precast concrete products and is thirty years in business. The company export ninety percent of products to the UK. The claimant was employed by the respondent in July 2012 at a time when the business was expanding. The respondent had secured a tunnel project in the UK supplying and delivering tunnel segments. The project was completed ahead of a two year timeframe. As a result production was reduced on a phased basis. Due to much competition in the business the respondent failed to secure similar contracts. A production chart was opened to the Tribunal. From September 2013 production was scaling back going from 150 segments in September 2013 to 50 in January 2014. The claimant worked in the quality checking and patching area. The decision to make the claimant redundant was taken as there was no alternative role for the claimant and other employees in that area had longer service. The managing director gave evidence of notifying the claimant of the termination of his employment by way of redundancy.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence and submissions by both parties at the hearing. The respondent failed to adopt any adequate policy or procedures around the dismissal of the claimant. The claimant was not consulted prior to the decision to terminate his employment by reason of redundancy and was not given an opportunity to consider other alternatives.
The Tribunal however find that there was minimal fault by the respondent in circumstances where there was a significant reduction in productivity following the completion of the tunnel project.
In all these circumstances the Tribunal finds that the dismissal was unfair and awards the claimant the sum of €1440.00 compensation under the Unfair Dismissal Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)