RP45/2014, MN51/2014, WT16/2014

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEALS OF:                                                                                                    CASE NO.

Elaine Verdon                                                                                                    RP45/2014

-Appellant                                                                                                         MN51/2014

                                                                                                                          WT16/2014

against

Airtricity Utility Solutions

Respondent

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS 1973 TO 2005

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:        Ms J. Mc Govern BL

                        Mr. P. Pierson

                        Mr. N. Dowling

heard these appeals on 08^th April 2015

Representation:

Appellant:  Mr. Trevor Collins, Mullaney, Solicitors,

                  6 Thomas Street, Sligo

Respondent:  Mr. David Farrell, Ibec, Confederation House,

                       84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2

Background:

The Respondent company is an electricity supply company which primarily maintains street lighting for local authorities. The business is governed mainly by contracts received from the various local authorities and county councils across the county. The said contracts normally run for periods up to 5 years and are allocated by way of tendering process. The Claimant was employed as a depot administrator in Athlone.  Following a tendering process in 2013 the Respondent lost certain contracts which required a rationalisation of the business. As part of that rationalisation it is contended that various depots across the country had to close which resulted in the relocation of operations and employees.   The Claimant contends that her position was made redundant as a result of the closure of the Athlone depot.

Respondent’s case:

The Tribunal heard evidence from GB who is the managing director of the Respondent.  He explained that they had circa 16 depots across the country.  Following a tendering process in 2013 the Respondent lost the Mayo, Sligo and Roscommon contracts for, at minimum, the following 5 years until then next tender. The Cavan, Monaghan and Louth tender was successful however. In the circumstances a decision was made to consolidate the Sligo and Athlone depots in a location that suited both the Respondent in terms of its business and the staff insofar as possible. Following negotiation with staff (and the TEU) it was decided that a new depot would open in Ballyconnell, Co. Cavan. The witness stated that a redundancy situation did not exist on the closure of the Athlone Depot. It was the company’s intention to try to retain staff and ultimately fifteen of the seventeen staff relocated to Ballyconnell. GB was aware that the move would affect some employees worse that others. However he felt that the move was an improvement for the Claimant in terms of mileage and travel time. The new depot was 20 minutes closer to Sligo than Athlone which could result in shorter travel time for her. He was aware that the Claimant sought redundancy and that she was not willing to travel to Ballyconnell. He did not think that there was suitable alternative work available for the Claimant. On cross examination he was questioned as to whether there were alternative roles in Galway and/or Portlaoise that he could have offered her. He stated that given the Claimant had a problem with distance and travelling he did not think these were suitable alternative options given they were further away than Ballyconnell. He confirmed that following the move to Ballyconnell her job remained available for her until such time that she had to be replaced in April 2014.   

The Tribunal heard evidence from the HR manageress VO. She stated that when the Claimant started working with the Respondent she did work 2 days a week in Sligo and 3 in Athlone. She was aware that the Claimant sought a similar arrangement in relation to Ballyconnell as the Sligo depot was to remain open for a period of time after the consolidation. She felt this was not suitable as the nature of the role of depot manager required a full time presence in Ballyconnell. VO did not agree that there was a redundancy situation in existence on the closure of the Athlone depot. She was aware the Claimant sought redundancy by reason of relocation but does not agree that her role was at risk. Furthermore, the travel time to Ballyconnell would likely be less time than the travel to Athlone. It remained open to her in Ballyconnell. VO feels that she attempted to engage with the Claimant concerning her request for redundancy but the Claimant did not respond to her letters during December 2013.

Claimant’s case:

The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant.  She explained that she lived in Sligo and her initial contract provided that her job as depot manager would be located in Athlone.  She was happy to work in Athlone as she knew the roads and had relatives there. Normally it took her one hour and forty minutes to travel to Athlone.  On 18^th November 2013 all staff attended a meeting in the Athlone depot where it was announced that the depot would be relocating to Ballyconnell. It was the Claimant’s evidence that the staff were not given a date for the relocation and she felt that the meeting was not terribly informative. She was not happy about the proposed relocation in particular she was concerned about driving from Sligo to Ballyconnell each day. The roads were considerably worse that the journey from Sligo to Athlone and she felt it would not be safe making that journey every day, particularly in winter. She queried whether or not she could do two days in Sligo and three in Ballyconnell but her manager indicated that was not an option. The Respondent required the depot manager to be present in Ballyconnell five days a week. In the circumstances the Claimant sent an email looking for a redundancy payment on the 19^th November 2013. She felt that there had been a fundamental change in her employment and because she was not offered suitable alternative employment a redundancy situation existed. When queried why she did not engage the grievance procedure with the Respondent she stated that she did not have a grievance, rather she was in a redundancy situation. She felt that she had exhausted all of her options with her manager who, she feels, did not listen to her.

Determination:

The claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 was withdrawn during the hearing by the Claimant’s representative.  The claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms Of Employment Acts, 1973 To 2005, is dismissed.

The Tribunal unanimously determines that a redundancy situation did not exist in this case.  Having heard the evidence of both parties the Tribunal believes that the Claimant did not engage with the Respondent in any meaningful way in relation to the proposed relocation. Furthermore, the Claimant was contradictory in her evidence in that she initially stated that she was not prepared to move to Ballyconnell due to the more hazardous route she would have to take to get there from Sligo on a daily basis. She went on to say however that she would have worked a three day week in Ballyconnell if she could work from Sligo the remaining two days.    The Claimants job was still available to her in Ballyconnell and she was only replaced in April 2014 when the Respondent was clear that she was not returning to work. While alternative work was not offered to the Claimant it seems that no such alternative was available in the circumstances. The claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 To 2007, is dismissed.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

      (CHAIRMAN)