EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
RP94/2014
APPEAL(S) OF:
Anna Essalhi-Ferenc
against
Fitzers Holdings Limited
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. A. Taaffe
Members: Mr. L. Tobin
Mr. C. Ryan
heard this case in Dublin on 5 June 2015
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s):
No legal or trade union representation
Respondent(s):
Ms. Catriona Forsyth, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The claimant’s position was that, following the cessation of business of the restaurant at which she had worked, she did not feel that the alternative post offered to her was suitable in terms of its location and the terms and conditions associated with it. While her work was mainly waitressing she had worked manager shifts for which she had been paid extra.
The claimant gave sworn testimony. Maps were studied. The availability of public transport was detailed as were shift times. Child-minding arrangements were also discussed. Asked if she could have made use of a bicycle, she was not enthused. There was no mention of any examination of any exploration by her of the possibility of her getting a lift and so being dropped home or to the new restaurant.
The respondent’s position was that, while it had not been possible to offer the claimant a post at its nearest restaurant to that at which the claimant had worked, it had offered a post at a location which it considered sufficiently near to the former location.
TK (CEO of the respondent’s group) gave sworn testimony. He said that the claimant could have got as many manager shifts at the new location as she had got in the past.
Determination:
The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence adduced both verbal and written.
It is satisfied that:
The holding company of the group of companies of which the respondent company was a member assumed responsibility for addressing the closure of the respondent’s business without objection from the claimant.
The aforementioned closure arose as a direct result of a failure to resolve a germane and significant difficulty which arose between the respondent company and its landlord
The difficulty when it presented was immediately relayed to the staff of the respondent company including the claimant.
The question of providing the staff, including the claimant, with a suitable alternative.
In deciding whether a suitable alternative was offered to the claimant and whether the claimant unreasonably refused it the Tribunal has (a) given consideration to the location of the claimant’s proposed new employment and compared it with her former location and accepts that a moderate increase in travel time and probable moderate additional expense would have arisen and (b) has examined the written commitment given by the respondent to the claimant undertaking to preserve the same terms and conditions that were present in her former employment in the new position offered.
It is found and determined (a) that the refusal of the claimant to accept the position offered to her because of its location was in the circumstances unreasonable and (b) that the concerns of the claimant in respect of the proposed full implementation of the terms and conditions of her former employment in her proposed new position were not well founded.
The Tribunal, therefore, finds and determines that the respondent provided suitable alternative employment which was unreasonably refused by the claimant and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to a redundancy payment as claimed and the Tribunal so determines.
The Tribunal considered the positions of both sides. It was not satisfied that the claimant’s employment had ended because she had not been offered a suitable alternative employment.
The claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)