EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
David Campion UD1199/2013
-claimant
against
Automated Systems & Controls
-respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms S. McNally
Members: Mr. D. Hegarty
Mr. D. Mc Evoy
heard this claim at Cork on 16th September 2014
Representation:
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Ms Ann Foley solicitor
Enerco Energy Ltd, Lissarda Industrial Estate, Lissarda,
Co. Cork, Ireland
Background:
The respondent company is a small company that is involved in installation and production of electrical switch gear. The respondent contends that the management noticed a decrease in the volume of work. Whilst the company tried to keep people in work they had to decide to reduce the level of employees in 2013. In February 2013 MM approached the claimant and explained that redundancies were required and explained alternative options. In March CB told the claimant that he was being made redundant and gave him his notice.
The claimant contends that the company does fluctuate with work but he was always open to options. He contends that he was unfairly selected for redundancy because he was a qualified electrician. The company did not want a distinction being made between a qualified electrician and an apprentice. Another employee who was let-go on the same day as he was, was re-instated.
Respondent’s case:
The Tribunal heard evidence from MM who is a principal in the company. He explained that the claimant served his time as an electrician and qualified in 2011. The claimant had a good work record. He explained that in 2013 one of their largest jobs came to an end. They had to make the decision to effect redundancies. The claimant was let-go but he was not the only employee to be made redundant.
They had eight electricians and the decision as to redundancies was made on last-in-first-out basis. The claimant was selected on that basis.
The company did from time to time get asked by companies to recommend an electrician. He told the claimant that if a vacancy arose he would offer him a position. Regarding electrician being taken on after the witness stated that no other electricians had been taken on since.
In cross-examination the witness was asked if he selected the claimant because of his qualifications. He explained that it was because of the lack of work. In answer to other questions the witness explained that they had a different range of employees to do different work i.e. different certification was required for different work.
The witness further explained to the Tribunal the different work and the qualifications required for the jobs. They had eight employees and this reduced down to five. The others that were retained had longer service than the claimant. They did re-hire someone but that employee is a labourer. They did take on apprentices and they had a duty to keep the apprentices for four years.
Claimant’s case:
The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant. He commenced with the respondent in 2007. He qualified as an electrician in 2011 and worked in the respondent company for two more years. He explained that there was a sister company (MCE) and that some employees from MCE were brought into the respondent company.
He explained that other electricians that arrived into the respondent were getting paid more than he was and he was instructing those electricians.
He also explained that another person (Mr. B) who was taken on less than a year before he was made redundant was kept on. Also another person who was not an electrician was doing electric work. Another worker who was let-go was taken back on into the respondent company.
The claimant gave evidence as to his loss.
In cross-examination it was put to the claimant that Mr. B had qualified as an electrician longer that he was. The claimant replied that he “was not sure”.
Determination:
Based on the evidence adduced the Tribunal determines that a redundancy situation existed at the time. The claimant stated in evidence that he received his full statutory redundancy. It is noted that the practice of the company regarding LIFO applies post qualification; that is the service for the electricians is calculated after their qualification date. The Tribunal accepts that the standard practice was post qualification. The respondent may have re-employed someone but they were not an electrician or at the claimant’s level of qualification.
The Tribunal determines that the claimant was not unfairly selected for redundancy. Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007, fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)