EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Valerie Iluyemi
- claimant UD1220/2014
RP683/2014
Against
HID Global Ireland Teoranta
- respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms C. Egan B L
Members: Mr T. Gill
Ms H. Henry
heard this claim at Galway on 5th January 2016
Representation:
Claimant(s) : Mr David Higgins, Berwick, Solicitors, 4 St Brendan's Road, Woodquay, Galway
Respondent(s) : Mr. Ronnie Lawless, IBEC,
West Regional Office, Ross House, Victoria Place, Galway
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Evidence
The respondent company operates a manufacturing site producing security devices for passports. The dismissal was in dispute in this case, therefore the Tribunal heard the claimant’s evidence first.
The claimant commenced employment with the respondent company in January 2006 as a production operator. The claimant has three children with health issues and with the approval of the respondent she commenced a period of carer’s leave in 2012 which ended in March 2014. In preparation for her return to the workplace, she sought the day shift only in order that she would be in a position to look after her children. The respondent informed her by letter that the day shift was not available. At a meeting on the 26 February 2014 with HR, the option of redundancy and the day shift pattern was discussed.
A letter opened to the Tribunal dated the 26 February referred to an offer of voluntary redundancy. The claimant applied for the voluntary redundancy option that day and believed her application was accepted. The claimant received a further letter which declined the option of redundancy. On contacting HR she was informed by (NMcD) of a return to work date of 27 March 2014 on a rotational shift pattern. The claimant was asked to confirm her resignation in writing if she was not returning. The claimant indicated she wanted to work to provide for her children. The claimant received a letter dated the 1 May 2014 which referred to her failure to return to work and an assumption of her resignation. The claimant’s P45 was also attached.
A letter dated the 26 February 2014 to the claimant offering the day shift and seeking signed consent was opened to the Tribunal. The claimant submitted that she did not refuse to sign that letter and believed the day shift option was now available to her. The claimant accepted that she received bonus payments during the period she was on carer’s leave. The claimant attempted to contact HR following receipt of the letter dated the 1 May 2014, but could not recall dates. Had she been offered the day shift, the claimant stated that she would have returned to work.
The HR manager (JK) gave evidence of the claimant’s work history and supports offered to her in circumstances where she had a sick child. The respondent facilitated the claimant and approved a period of carer’s leave which was back dated in order to assist her. The witness assigned NMcD in HR to contact the claimant and meet her in December 2013 as her return to work was imminent. In February 2014 the business experienced a downturn and management took the decision to seek voluntary redundancies. A limited number of twelve positions in production were to be chosen and applications were sought with a deadline of the 14 March 2014 set. The claimant was contacted in that regard. In order to assist employees with deciding to volunteer for redundancy, information packs including template letters with redundancy dates and calculations of lump sum amounts were prepared and distributed to forty employees, including the claimant. All letters were dated 26 February 2014 and no RP50’s were ever prepared. Other cost cutting measures proposed by management was to close the night shift and to prepare for this change all employees on the night shift were asked to sign a letter authorising moving to the day shift. This letter was also dated the 26 February 2014. The claimant did not agree to sign that letter. The claimant applied for the voluntary redundancy option. Within a short period of time business improved and there was an increase in orders and the company no longer required to reduce the workforce. All forty employees who had applied, including the claimant, were informed immediately and redundancy was declined in a letter dated the 24 March 2014. JK had attended the meeting with the claimant on the 26 February and was satisfied that the claimant was never told that she had been granted redundancy at any stage during the process. At the meeting the claimant begged for the redundancy option, however JK had to be transparent with the selection process. The claimant was informed that if she was unsuccessful with her redundancy application her return to work date was the 27 March 2014. The claimant had failed to formally apply for the day shift option offered to her on the 26 February 2014.
HR generalist NMcD gave evidence of meeting the claimant on the 20 December 2013 to discuss her return to work. The claimant requested the day shift and it was agreed any hospital appointments for her children would be facilitated. Her return to work date was agreed for the 27 March 2014. A letter issued to the claimant confirming her return. In or around the 19 February NMcD contacted the claimant to invite her to a further meeting which was held on the 26 February. At the meeting the claimant was given a letter confirming receipt of her bonus which she signed, a letter seeking a formal request for the day shift and the information pack on the voluntary redundancy offer. The claimant refused to sign the day shift request and said she did not now want the day shift and only wanted redundancy, which she applied for on the day. The witness had prepared the individual information packs with redundancy dates and entitlements in order to assist employees in reaching a decision. Following the withdrawal of the redundancy, the witness contacted the claimant on the 26 March to confirm her return to work the following day. The claimant requested the day shift only and said she would resign if she was not assigned to the day shift. Having had no communication from the claimant the witness wrote to her on the 1 May 2014. The next communication from the claimant was through her solicitor in a letter dated the 5 August 2014.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence submitted by both parties. The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent explained to the claimant that her application for redundancy was not guaranteed. The Tribunal notes that no employee was made redundant at that time or since.
The Tribunal by majority decision with Mr Gill dissenting, finds that in all the circumstances the claimant resigned her position voluntarily. Furthermore, despite correspondence from the company in May 2014 the claimant failed to contact or communicate with the HR department.
The claims under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 and the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 are therefore dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)