UD258/2014

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF:                                                                                                                CASE NO.

Patrick McLoughlin                                                                                                  UD258/2014

against

Okinawa Limited T/A The Beacon Hotel

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:    Ms. M.  Levey B.L.

Members:     Mr F.  Cunneen

                     Mr A.  Butler

heard this claim at Dublin on 18th March 2015

Representation:

Claimant:

             The claimant in person

Respondent:

              Magda Egan, Group Human Resources Manager,

              The Beacon Hotel, Sandyford, Dublin 18

Respondent’s case:

The respondent operates a number of hotels and the claimant was employed as a maintenance manager in one of these hotels from 26^th October 2010 until he was dismissed by way of redundancy on 6^th September 2013.

The one witness for the respondent was not employed there at when the claimant was made redundant and could not give evidence as to the procedures followed in selecting the claimant for redundancy. This witness told the Tribunal that currently there is no maintenance person employed at the hotel. Any minor maintenance (eg. changing light bulbs) is carried out by the porters and any major maintenance jobs are given out to external contractors.

The respondent was not experiencing financial difficulties at the time of the redundancy but was seeking to reduce costs. The witness denied that the claimant had been replaced in his role by a particular porter whom the claimant alleged was now the maintenance person.

Claimant’s case:

It was the claimant’s position that he was unfairly selected for redundancy. He told the Tribunal that his job was now being carried out by a porter whom he had helped train in and had temporarily replaced him while the claimant was on holidays.

The claimant’s contract of employment stipulated that he could be moved around within the respondent company but this was never offered to him as an alternative to redundancy. Having finished his day’s work on 7^th August 2013 the claimant was called to the office by the manager and told that he was being made redundant. There was no prior consultation on the matter and there was no discussion about alternatives to redundancy. The claimant was not offered an opportunity to appeal the decision to make him redundant. Shortly after the claimant was made redundant a position for maintenance manager was advertised in another of the respondent’s hotels and the claimant applied for that position, however his application was unsuccessful.

Determination:

Having considered all the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal finds that a genuine redundancy situation existed at the time of the claimant’s dismissal. However having regard to the failure of the respondent to bring any relevant witness and bearing in mind the lack of consultation with the claimant together with the conduct generally of the respondent in regard to the process used in the redundancy the Tribunal finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awards him €8,000.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

It should be noted that this award is in addition to the statutory redundancy already received by the claimant.         

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

      (CHAIRMAN)