RP236/2014, MN229/2014

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL(S) OF:                                                                                                        CASE NO.

Raymond Dickson      (appellant)                                                                            RP236/2014      

                                                                                                                                 MN229/2014

Against

Headway Security Management & Investigations Limited

            (respondent)

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Mr. T. Ryan

Members:     Ms J. Winters

                   Mr J. Maher

heard this appeal at Dublin on 4th September 2015

Representation:

_______________

Appellant(s) :             Ms. Helena Guilfoyle, Dublin 12 & 6w Citizens Information

                                   Centre, 8 Sundrive Road, Crumlin, Dublin 12

Respondent(s) :          In person

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:

The respondent operates a security company and employed the appellant as a security officer from 20^th January 1997 until April, 2013.   The appellant worked in a college (site W) for eleven years as it is a policy of the company to make employees site specific. Due to a number of vehicle break-ins at the college, the respondent was asked by client W to remove the appellant and to replace him with another security officer. This was after the appellant was spoken to on a number of occasions.

Therespondent was not in a position to re-locate the appellant as the company did not have a vacancy elsewhere and told the appellant that they would contact him at the first available job opportunity. In April, 2014 the respondent offered the appellant a position as one of the employees was retiring. The respondent offered the same terms and conditions to the appellant with the same salary and length of service maintained.   The appellant told the respondent that he would be happy to take up the position on condition that the respondent paid him for the year he was not employed by them.   The respondent was not in a position financially to comply with the appellant’s request and the appellant refused to take up the position offered.

The company then advertised the position and filled it. The respondent told the Tribunal that the appellant’s position was not made redundant and was filled within the company through extra shifts.      

Determination

The respondent operates a security company and employed the appellant as a security officer at a college. Due to a number of break-ins on site the college requested the company to replace the appellant with another security officer. The respondent was not in a position to re-locate the appellant as it had no vacancy. In April 2014 the respondent offered the appellant a position with the same terms and conditions and with the same salary and length of service maintained. The appellant would only accept this offer on condition that he was paid for the year that he was not employed by the respondent.

Having heard the evidence in its entirety the Tribunal is satisfied that no genuine redundancy existed. The appellant was offered a position and refused it unreasonably, in the view of the Tribunal.

Accordingly the appellant’s appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 fails.

The Tribunal also determines that the appellant is not entitled to a payment under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)