EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Robert Casey UD1667/2012
against
William O'Brien (Plant-Hire)
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. S. McNally
Members: Mr. P. Casey
Mr. J. Flavin
heard this case in Cork on 8 April 2014
and 17 June 2014
and 10 September 2014
Representation:
_______________
Claimant(s):
Mr. Eamon Shanahan BL instructed by
Mr. Paul Derham, Daly Derham Donnelly, Solicitors,
Florence Buildings, 1a Washington Street West, Cork
Respondent(s) :
Mr. Conor O'Connell, Construction Industry Federation,
Construction House, 4 Eastgate Avenue, Little Island, Cork
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This case came to the Tribunal as an unfair dismissal claim by a planthire sales and operations manager in respect of his employment with the respondent from July 2008 to the end of March 2012.
It was the respondent’s position that the downturn in construction had led to the claimant’s post being redundant. The respondent offered an alternative role in advance of the payment and negotiation of his redundancy package. The respondent believed that the claimant had accepted the alternative role and negotiated for the Operations Manager to defer his retirement in order to train the claimant into the new role which encompassed the role of the then Operations Manager. The alternative role was not to commence until August of that year, but in the intervening period he would take a temporary role on site at reduced remuneration for the purpose of learning the operations at the ground level. The respondents contention was that the redundancy package was for the purposes of compensation for the delay in the commencement of the new role. The claimant accepted payment of a redundancy lump sum. He obtained new employment with another employer within a week of the end of his employment with the respondent.
However, it was alleged that the claimant had been unfairly selected for redundancy by the respondent. The claimant’s position was that the negotiations and payment of the redundancy package was after the offer of the new alternative role and was of the view that the only alternative role offered to the claimant post his redundancy package was the temporary role on site at reduced remuneration.
The claimant explained the fact that many months elapsed before an unfair dismissal claim was made by contending that the respondent had neither properly consulted with him before his redundancy about possible alternatives nor complied with best practice in carrying out proper procedures. He was disturbed by his work appearing to have been offered to one or more other people in the months after his departure.
The respondent’s position was that internees were engaged for specific functions, but none took on the position that the claimant had before being made redundant.
Determination:
The Tribunal gave careful consideration to the testimony and submissions heard over the course of several hearings. The finding of the Tribunal was that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy but that it was not unfair as the position held was made redundant. The claimant accepted his redundancy package and within a short time accepted an offer of employment with another Company. The Tribunal is unanimous that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)