EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIMS OF: CASE NO.
Derek Watters – Claimant UD785/2014
against:
C & F Automotive Limited T/A Iralco – Respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. P. O’Leary B.L.
Members: Mr. P. Pierson
Ms. H. Murphy
heard this claim at Longford on 1st July 2015 and at Mullingar on 3rd November 2015
Representation
Claimant: Mr Conor Quinn of John J. Quinn & Company, Solicitors, Earl Street, Longford
Respondent: Thomas Harrington, In House Legal Advisor of Group, C/O C & F Automotive Limited, Collinstown, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath
This case was heard in tandem with UD788/2014.
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Background
The respondent company is in the business of manufacturing decorative trimmings for motor vehicles. Due to serious losses there arose a need for redundancies. 17 employees were made redundant.
Respondent’s Case
The production manager gave evidence. During his 17 years’ service he had been employed as a Supervisor and was promoted to the role of production manager in October 2013.
He explained to the Tribunal the losses the respondent had incurred from 2012. In 2013 twenty employees had been made redundant. The respondent decided cost cutting measures had to be implemented. Staff members who left were not replaced and jobs would be consolidated.
The claimant was employed, with three others, as a tool setter over a three shift pattern. Operators working on the factory floor were trained how to perform the tool setters role. It was decided one of the tool setters would be made redundant. The production manager told the Tribunal that there had been no formal policy in order to decide who would be selected to be made redundant. The last in first out (L.I.F.O.) policy was not in place. It had been abolished for use in redundancy situations when the New Green Book was introduced following the agreement of the workforce in September 2008. The operations manager stated the reasoning for his selection was made on whether the person worked well in a team and whether they could work under supervision. The claimant was selected. No alternative position was available to offer to the claimant and no right to appeal the decision was offered to him.
On cross-examination he stated that he had not taken the claimant’s long service into account, the claimant had the longest services compared to the other three tool setters. None of the 4 tool setters had previous disciplinary issues.
Claimant’s Case
The claimant gave evidence. He started working for the respondent on a temporary contract in October 1995. At the end of his employment he was a tool setter. He received training whenever it was needed. He was trained for every piece of new equipment. He was one of 4 tool setters. The plant worked 24/7. This required 3 tool setters, one for each shift and a spare. He did call outs when asked. Call outs for him were usually on a Sunday.
The claimant did not attend the meeting on 10 August 2008 but he had heard about it. He did not get a copy of the New Green Book, nobody did.
On the day he was made redundant, the claimant was called to a meeting with the operations manager and the HR manager at 10 to 6 in the evening. They read through his notification of redundancy letter. Before leaving the premises he wanted to collect his tools. He had heard rumours that the respondent was losing money and he heard in the media that the business was in trouble. He felt that voluntary redundancies should have been sought before compulsory redundancies were made.
The claimant was not offered retraining or an alternative role. No reason was given for his selection. No one ever said that he was not a team player and he had not refused to help general operatives to set tools.
After the termination of his employment he went to the CIC and they drafted his appeal letter. This letter was acknowledged but his appeal was never dealt with. The claimant was paid minimum notice and redundancy.
The claimant gave evidence of loss.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced in this case. Despite the absence of financial information relating to the respondent’s business the Tribunal is inclined to accept the view that the respondent was making a loss in the period before the claimant was dismissed. A redundancy situation existed.
The production manager was clear in his evidence that LIFO was no longer company policy at the time the claimant was made redundant. However, no evidence was forthcoming to demonstrate adherence to the redundancy policy as set out in the New Green Book. The respondent was harsh in refusing to consider the claimant’s appeal because he did not lodge it within the time period set out in the New Green Book that was not resorted to in making him redundant. No objective process was used to select the claimant for redundancy and the reasons for his selection were never given to him. Therefore the Tribunal finds that the termination of his employment was unfair. The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997 to 2007 succeeds.
In all the circumstances the claimant is awarded the sum of €40,000.00.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)