EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Fiona Lennon – claimant UD1154/2014
against
Kennedy Echo Publishing Limited – respondent
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms M. Levey BL
Members: Mr C. Lucey
Mr F. Barry
heard this claim at Dublin on 15th October 2015
Representation
Claimant: Mr William Maher BL instructed by Cullen & Company Solicitors,
86/88 Tyrconnell Road, Inchicore, Dublin 8
Respondent: In person
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
Respondent’s Case
The consultant for the respondent gave evidence. The respondent is a newspaper publisher. The business was founded in 1980 and sold to a plc in 2005. Then in 2010 the consultant and his family bought it back. Trading conditions are difficult for newspapers.
The respondent suffered a significant loss in 2014. This situation was unsustainable. Three redundancies were made, one from each department. The claimant worked in credit control in the accounts department. Her work load had decreased due to changes in the sales order system.
The consultant made the decision to make the claimant redundant. He did not put her on notice that her position was in jeopardy and neither did he consult with her about alternatives. In his view there were no alternatives. Redundancies were necessary for economic reasons.
The claimant had 17 years’ service with the respondent. She was the junior in the accounts department. The consultant’s son was her manager and he took over her tasks. He had less service than the claimant but he is a director of the company. The claimant did not have a contract of employment so there was no question of the contract detailing how redundancy would be handled. The decision to make the claimant redundant was not made on the basis of LIFO (last in, first out).
The consultant called the claimant to a meeting without advance notice and informed her she was being made redundant. He gave her the option of leaving then or of working her notice. He asked her not to tell other staff she was being made redundant until he had informed the other 2 that they were being made redundant too. There was no alternative to making the claimant redundant.
A director from the respondent gave evidence to clearly state that she did not say to the claimant after her meeting with the consultant that she was glad the meeting had been scheduled after the claimant had finished her days’ work.
Claimant’s Case
The claimant gave evidence. She started working for the respondent in 1999 in a full time position. From 2003 she worked part time. She was an accounts assistant but she did some other work as required.
She was very shocked to be made redundant. There had been no warning and neither was there any discussion of alternatives. The consultant gave her 2 weeks’ notice but when she brought it to his attention that she should get more he agreed. No selection criteria were explained to her. The consultant told her there was a need to cut staff and there would be other redundancies.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the respondent that because of the difficult financial position it experienced cuts had to be made to the workforce. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed.
The respondent selected the claimant for redundancy without recourse to any selection criteria or policy. Unfortunately as the claimant had no contract of employment there was no procedure that she could expect to have implemented. The Tribunal finds that the absence of procedures renders the selection of the claimant for redundancy unfair. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997 to 2007 succeeds and the claimant, taking into account her redundancy payment, is awarded the sum of €3,500.00.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)