EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Edward McBride RP788/2014
against
Ladbroke (Ireland) Limited
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms K.T. O'Mahony B.L.
Members: Ms M. Sweeney
Mr D. McEvoy
heard this appeal at Cork on 16th July 2015
Representation:
Appellant:
Mr Frank Hannon, Hannon, Solicitors, 70 Shandon Street, North Gate Bridge, Cork
Respondent:
Ms Breda O'Malley, Hayes, Solicitors, Lavery House, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
Summary of Evidence
The respondent has several bookmaker shops in Ireland. The appellant was employed as a customer service advisor in one of its shops in Cork from 25th April 2007 to 31st August 2014.
The respondent was closing two of its shops in Cork. The head of HR (HHR) called the six members of staff working in the two shops to a group meeting on 12th August 2014 to inform of this. Individual meetings were held with each employee following the group meeting. The stores were to close on 19th August 2014.
The respondent’s position was that the employees concerned were told at a general staff meeting that the two shops were being closed and that a 30 day consultation period was commencing as of 12th August 2014 which would result in either their redundancy or redeployment in one of its other stores. The appellant’s position was that he was made redundant on 12th August; that he was told that there was no alternative work available for him and that securing any position that might arise would be by way of selection criteria. He was stunned. Of the six employees involved he had the second longest service with the respondent. He asked what the position would be if he got another job in the meantime and he was assured that he would be “looked after”. The employees were given an information pack on 12th August containing inter alia an options/preference form for completion to indicate their preference for redundancy or redeployment to a suitable alternative role. The appellant indicated his preference for a redundancy package. The respondent was adamant in its evidence that the employees affected were informed that there would be no redundancies made until the end of the consultation period. Its position was that it was using the 30 day consultation period to seek alternative positions for the affected employees. Another member of the respondent’s HR team confirmed HHR’s version of the message given to the six employees on 12th August. If response to a subsequent query the respondent confirmed that should an employee find alternative employment during the consultation period the respondent would waive the requirement to give notice.
HHR had not contacted the appellant by 15 August as indicated by her in her letter of 12th August. The appellant maintained that he phoned HHR but got no reply. HHR’s position was that she did not see any missed call on her phone.
It was common case that in a phone conversation on 20th August 2014 HHR had told the appellant about the possibility of alternative employment with the respondent and that she would know the position in a few days following a discussion on staffing levels with the area manager/supervisor.
By letter of 22nd August 2014 the appellant informed the respondent that he had found alternative employment and was giving one week’s notice that that his employment with the respondent would be ending on 29th August 2014. He handed in his notice so as not to “leave them in a lurch” as he would not be working out the 30 day notice given by the respondent. However, his position was that that he had received notice of his redundancy from the respondent on 12th August 2014 and understood his job was gone.
On 26th August the respondent wrote to the appellant offering him redeployment to another position within the company, which would involve working between two stores. This was within the 30 day consultation period and it was the respondent’s position that the appellant was therefore never made redundant. The appellant’s position was that he had already been made redundant at that point and was entitled to a redundancy lump sum. He commenced employment with another company immediately thereafter, on 1 September 2014. He took up the position because he had given them his word.
HHR’s position was that the respondent found positions for five of the six employees by the end of the 30 day consultation period. Only one employee, the customer service manager, was made redundant. She was not willing to work in a lower position for lower wages. All vacancies had to be filled before anyone would be made redundant. The appellant was the only employee to misinterpret what was said at the meeting on 12th August or in the letter give to them that day.
The customer service manager had worked for 18 years with the respondent. Her evidence was that she had been told at the individual meeting on 12th August and subsequently that there was no position there for her. HHR had not contacted her either by 15th August, although she had indicated she would. She finished work on 12th September 2014 and received her redundancy payment.
Determination:
There was a conflict of evidence as to the exact position regarding possible redundancies or redeployment that had been communicated to staff at the meetings on 12th August 2014. The letter of 12th August 2014, which was given to the six employees including the appellant stated:
“As discussed at our meeting we have now commenced a 30 day consultation period at the end of which a redundancy payment or offer of redeployment to a suitable alternative position will be made to you.”
Having considered the oral evidence and the contents of this letter the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent was reserving its position on making any redundancies until the end of the 30 day consultation period but the appellant, and he alone, misinterpreted this communication. In line with the communications of 12th August the appellant was offered redeployment by the respondent. He turned down the offer of redeployment because he had already accepted an offer of employment from another employer and not because of any contended unsuitability of the alternative position offered by the respondent. In opting not to accept this offer by the respondent the appellant resigned of his own volition.
Therefore, the claim under the Redundancy Payment’s Acts, 1967 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)