EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Jaroslav Nedbal UD494/2015
Claimant
against
Eurodrug Limited
Respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr C. Corcoran B.L.
Members: Mr P. Pierce
Mr J. Flannery
heard this claim at Dublin on 22nd April 2016
Representation:
Claimant: Ms Aine Hartigan BL instructed by:
Mr Phelim O'Neill, Phelim O'Neill, Solicitors, 120 Pembroke Road, Dublin 4
Respondent: Mr. Conor Bowman BL instructed by:
Mr David Frawley, O'Hagan Ward & Co, Solicitors, 31-33 The Triangle,
Ranelagh, Dublin 6
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Background:
The respondent is a pharmaceutical logistics business. The claimant commenced employment on the 14th February 2008 as an Office Administrator in the Irish base of the UK parent company.
In 2013 a management buyout of the company took place. In 2014 a review of the company was taken and it was decided the company would be restructured to cut costs. The claimant’s post was identified as a position to be redundant. The reason being it was a unique post within the company as a whole, in the UK the duties the claimant carried out in Ireland were dealt with by the various departments the duties too. It was decided this same process would now be undertaken by the relevant departments in the Irish business.
An initial meeting was held between the claimant and the HR Group Manager (TM) in the Dublin office on the 30th July 2014 to discuss his role. On this same day, albeit both parties differ as to the time it was submitted, the claimant lodged a grievance against his General Manager (OB). The company responded to and dealt with his grievance before any further consultations took place regarding his role. During this time the claimant was absent on certified sick leave, returning in October 2014.
On the 11th December 2014 the Commercial Director (NM) wrote to the claimant regarding the company, it’s restructure and the company’s consideration to making his position redundant. The claimant was invited to a consultation meeting on the 22nd December 2014. NM met the claimant, discussed his position and the claimant explained how he felt his role was of a full time nature.
On the 30th January 2015 NM again wrote to the claimant explaining his role was to be made redundant but suggested three alternative positions, albeit at a lower salary, that may be of interest to him. A second meeting was held on the 4th February 2015. The claimant again attended alone but requested the meeting be recorded. The purpose of the meeting was to ascertain from the claimant why his position should not be made redundant and to discuss the alternative positions suggested.
On the 11th February 2015 a formal notice of redundancy was sent to the claimant advising him of the redundancy payment payable to him based on his length of service and gross salary. The claimant was also advised he could appeal the decision. The same day the claimant’s solicitor wrote a detailed response to appeal the respondent’s decision.
On the 16th February 2015 the General Manager of the respondent’s Yorkshire company (JB) wrote to the claimant advising him of the time, date and location of the appeal hearing. The appeal meeting took place in Dublin on the 25th February 2015 where all issues were discussed. JB wrote to the claimant on the 4th March 2015 advising him the decision to make his position redundant was to be upheld.
The claimant was made redundant and paid a sum of €7,772.40. The claimant position was not replaced.
Respondent’s Position:
The Commercial Director (NM), the HR Group Manager (TM) and the General Manager of the respondent’s Yorkshire company (JB) gave detailed evidence of the company structure, the management takeover in 2013 and the restructuring process within the company. They explained the position the claimant held was unique to the Irish company, in the UK companies his duties were carried out by the respective departments of the business they related to.
All three witnesses agreed the respondent had not wanted to lose the claimant as he was a very good employee and there had been no issues with him. This was why three alternative positions had been offered to him in the hope he would accept one. They agreed the positions offered were at a lower salary but in respect of the position in Telesales he would have been able to earn commission to increase his salary and they were sure he would have been able to achieve same.
Claimant’s Position:
The claimant gave evidence. He told the Tribunal he had no issues working for the respondent company until the new General Manager (OB) was employed. On the 30th July 2014 he lodged a formal complaint against OB to the HR Group Manager (TM). This was the same day on which TB had arrived at the Dublin office to speak to him regarding his role. The claimant stated he had submitted this grievance by email before he met TM, the respondent refuted this in evidence. Following this meeting the claimant was absent from work on certified sick leave until October 2014.
The claimant agreed he had engaged in the redundancy consultation process with the respondent but had “denied the idea” stating to management that his role was “full time” and he was “busier than ever” working 20-40 hours overtime per month.
The claimant explained to the Tribunal the reasons he had turned down the three alternative positions offered to him. The first reason was he deemed one or more were a demotion and the second was due to the decrease in salaries offered. He was earning €33,000 - €34,000 per year, including overtime payments.
When put to him the claimant agreed his position was not replaced and his duties were since carried out by various departments within the Irish company.
The claimant gave evidence of his efforts to mitigate his loss of earnings.
Determination:
The Tribunal have carefully considered the sworn evidence and submissions adduced in this matter.
On balance the Tribunal finds the respondent company used fair procedures in its dealings with the claimant’s situation and finds his redundancy was genuine. Accordingly, the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 is dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)