EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD1421/2013
CLAIM OF:
Brian Cobbe
against
NDBA Architects Limited
T/A Niall D. Brennan Associates
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr C. Corcoran B.L.
Members: Mr W. Power
Mr A. Butler
heard this claim at Dublin on 26th January 2015 and 24th March 2015
Representation:
Claimant:
Wendy Doyle Solicitors, 20 Lr Baggot St, Dublin 2
Respondent:
Mr John Barry, Management Support Services, The Courtyard, Hill Street, Dublin 1
Respondent’s case:
The respondent is an architectural firm and the claimant was employed as an architect from 27th August 1999 until he was dismissed by way of redundancy on 20th September 2013. In 2006 the claimant was promoted to director.
It was the respondent’s position that there was a huge decline in business from 2009 up to the time the claimant was made redundant. There had been severe pay cuts and all staff except for the directors were on a three day week. Initially there were four directors and one had been made redundant prior to the claimant’s redundancy. Out of the three directors left one was the major shareholder and another had over ten years more service with the respondent than the claimant had.
The respondent outlined to the Tribunal the projects that were live at the time of the decision to make the claimant redundant and held that there was not enough work to sustain three directors. Since the claimant was dismissed the two remaining directors have managed the ongoing projects and the claimant has not been replaced. It was denied by the respondent that there was any reason other than the financial position of the company for making the claimant redundant.
Claimant’s case:
It was the claimant’s position that a genuine redundancy situation did not exist at the time of his dismissal and that in fact there was still enough work to justify his continued employment.
No alternatives to redundancy were offered to the claimant and he was shocked when he was told of his redundancy. The working relationship between the claimant and the major shareholder/director of the respondent had deteriorated considerably for over a year before the claimant was made redundant and the claimant contended that his dismissal was more to do with that than the financial state of the company.
There had been discussions between the parties prior to the redundancy in respect of an enhanced redundancy package but these discussions broke down.
Determination:
The Tribunal carefully considered all the evidence adduced at the hearing. Based on the figures and oral evidence in relation to the financial situation of the respondent company the Tribunal is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed at the time of the claimant’s dismissal. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the respondent was reasonable in selecting the claimant for redundancy.
The evidence of the respondent was that there were three directors and not enough work to justify this situation. However the claimant contended that there was enough work for all three and that the redundancy was not justified. In this respect the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent.
The claimant did not suggest that he ought to have been kept on in place of one of the other two directors and the respondent presented very reasoned explanations as to why the claimant was selected instead of either of the other two directors.
Therefore in all the circumstances the Tribunal finds that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and the claimant’s claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)