EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Angeline Bradshaw – claimant UD1088/2014
against
Hidden Hearing Limited - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. M. Levey BL
Members: Mr F. Cunneen
Mr P. Trehy
heard this claim at Dublin on 22nd September 2015, 11th November 2015 and 14th December, 2015
Representation:
Claimant: Mr Sean Ormonde, Sean Ormonde & Co, Solicitors, Suite 19,
The Atrium, Canada Street, Waterford
Respondent: Mr Peter McInnes, McInnes Dunne, Solicitors, Lower Ground
Floor, 78 Merrion Square, Dublin 2
Ms Patricia Garland-Moloney, Hidden Hearing Limited, 3030
Lake Drive, Citywest Business Campus, Dublin 24
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
Determination
The claimant commenced working for the respondent in November 2011 as a receptionist. She performed well in this role and was given consistently positive performance reviews during her employment.
At first the claimant had a very good relationship with her manager but this deteriorated when the claimant was involved in organising functions for the respondent’s business. The manager denied that there had been any change in their relationship but accepted that the managing director spoke to her about it and that she had assured him that she had discussed the issues with the claimant and matters were sorted between them. The Tribunal thought it unsatisfactory that the managing director did not also speak to the claimant again but merely accepted at face value the manager’s view that all was well.
The managing director gave evidence that a global instruction from the parent company issued in 2013 requesting that all operations be reviewed with a view to securing cuts to costs. Based on the review he decided that a receptionist was no longer required at headquarters and that the claimant would be made redundant.
The Tribunal finds that a genuine redundancy situation existed. However the procedures used by the respondent to affect the redundancy were deeply flawed. The respondent’s Staff Handbook contains a detailed Redundancy Procedure but it was not used. The claimant was not given advance notice of the meeting on 9 May 2014 because the HR officer felt it “best not to be cruel”. No realistic attempt was made to find an alternative role for the claimant. She was told that she could apply for an Audiologist position but she was not trained in this work and the possible locations were unsuitable.
The HR officer drew up a criteria document for selection for redundancy that was intended to by consistent and fair. However this was questionable when applied to the claimant as she was the only receptionist. The exercise was futile and unnecessary.
In this case the redundancy was genuine but because of the respondent’s lack of fair procedure and in accordance with Section 5 (b) of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993 the Tribunal find that the dismissal of the claimant was unfair. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 succeeds.
In assessing the compensation to be paid to the claimant the Tribunal must have regard to the fact that a substantial ground, namely redundancy, has been shown, the redundancy payment paid to the claimant and the claimant’s lack of candour in giving evidence. In all the circumstances the claimant is awarded the sum of €1,000.00.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)