ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000046

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Venue: Tom Johnson House

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/02/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, following the referral of the complaint/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint/dispute.

Background

The Complainant was employed as a Sous Chef from 30^th April 2014 to 22^nd May 2015. He was paid €34,000 per annum. He has claimed that he was let go for redundancy purposes but this was an unfair dismissal as another person was employed 2 weeks before he was dismissed. He has sought compensation.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant’s representative stated that they sought by notice of particulars the reasons for the dismissal but nothing was received. He received no notification of the meeting that led to his dismissal. He was not offered the right of representation. He was not given the right of appeal.

This was an unfair dismissal and it was procedurally unfair as well.

He has sought compensation. He has applied for 30 positions since his dismissal.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent stated that they lost a contract in March 2015. In April 2015 they lost another contract. On 22^nd May 2015 they received notification of the cancellation of a large contract which was to end 29^th May 2015. They needed to cut costs. They cut hours in the Cold Kitchen. They decided to make two Chefs redundant including the Complainant. They met with the Complainant on 22^nd May, the day they lost the large contract. They advised him that he was being made redundant. He had previously been offered the Head Chef post but he declined. They did not re-offer him that post as he had declined it. There was no alternative to redundancy.

Findings

I accept the Respondent’s position that they lost three very important contracts.

I note that they implemented savings in the Cold Kitchen.

I note that two Chefs were made redundant including the Complainant.

I note that they considered alternatives to redundancy but none existed.

I find that this was a genuine redundancy.

I find that I have concerns about the way that the redundancy was handled.

I note that he was not advised in advance of the meeting or the purpose of the meeting that led to his dismissal by reason of redundancy.

I find that he was not given the opportunity to make his case.

I find that he was not given the right of representation.

I find that he was not given the right of appeal of that decision.

I find that this process was procedurally unsound.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint/dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I have decided that there was a genuine redundancy therefore the dismissal was not unfair on substantive grounds.

I have decided that the process lacked procedural fairness and so the dismissal by reason of redundancy was procedurally unfair and warranting compensation.

I declare that the Respondent should pay the Complainant compensation of €1,250 within six weeks of the date below.

Dated:   20^th April 2016