EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Kenneth O’Reilly, UD329/2013
Dublin 7 - claimant
against
Johnston Mooney & O’Brien Bakeries,
- respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. J. Revington SC
Members: Mr. R. Murphy
Mr. J. Dorney
heard this claim at Dublin on 28th March 2014 and 13th October 2014
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Mr. D. Ryan BL instructed by:
Eoghan O’Reilly, FH O’Reilly & Company, Solicitors, The Red Church,
North Circular Road, Phibsboro, Dublin 7
Respondent(s) : Tim O’Connell, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86, Lr. Baggot Street,
Dublin 2
Summary of Case
The claimant was employed as a part-time driver by the respondent production and distribution bakery company from 2007. He assumed a full-time position in June 2008 and subsequently combined his driver position with that of assistant transport manager. In that regard, as a qualified mechanic he reported vehicle issues to a company that was contracted by the respondent company to look after the respondent’s fleet of vehicles. In his position as driver the claimant worked on day shifts but there was an expectation on him as with all drivers to be flexible to meet the demands of the business in line with the company’s operational requirements. This level of flexibility was outlined in the claimant’s contract of employment.
The Tribunal heard evidence that in 2011/2012 following a re-structuring of operations, drivers were requested to alter their shift patterns, hours and rates of pay. This was necessary due to the significantly changed business environment in which the company operated. A letter addressed to the claimant dated 15/8/2012 was opened to the Tribunal confirming the proposed changes as (1) a 30 minute later start (2) switching the one hour maintenance work to driving duties (3) the addition of further collection duties when required. The maintenance duties which the claimant had been carrying out were subsumed into the role of the transport manager and accordingly the claimant was no longer required to carry out maintenance duties.
The Tribunal heard evidence that several meetings were held between the company and the claimant in July and August 2012 in order to come to an agreement on the proposed changes. Ultimately no agreement could be reached between the parties.
The claimant gave evidence that he made a number of proposals to the company but they were not accepted. He told the Tribunal that the changes proposed by the company would have resulted in him having to work night shifts. He was not in a position to carry out night work due to his personal domestic circumstances. There was enough day work available for him to continue to carry out day duties. He told the Tribunal that day shifts were allocated to agency workers because it was cheaper for the company to employ agency workers. He stated that the transport manager had links to the agency contracted to supply agency workers.
Eventually a decision was taken by the company to make the claimant’s position redundant and the claimant was paid €12017.68 inclusive of an ex-gratia payment in lieu of his entitlement.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced by both parties. The Tribunal is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed and appropriate procedures were adopted by the respondent company. In those circumstances the Tribunal finds that the dismissal was fair and the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)