EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD1362/2014
CLAIM OF:
Elizabeth Staunton Brown
-Claimant
Against
Hotel AC Westport T/A The Westport Coast Hotel
-Respondent
Joseph and Anne Corcoran T/A Westport Hotel Group
-Respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal (Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Dr. A. Courell B.L.
Members: Mr. T. Gill
Mr. M. Mc Garry
heard this claim at Castlebar on 1st March 2016 and 12th May 2016
Representation:
Claimant: Mr Conor Bowman B.L. instructed by, Mr. Joseph Burke, McCartan & Burke, Solicitors, Iceland House, Arran Court, Smithfield, Dublin 7
Respondent: Mr. Eoin Garavan B.L. instructed by, Mr David Scott, Hughes Scott & Co, Solicitors, Castlebar Road, Westport, Co Mayo
Background:
The Respondent's legal representative explained that redundancies had to be effected; there was no room for two marketing executives in the Respondent hotel group. They invited the Claimant to a meeting and after a process they decided that her position was untenable. She was also the most recent employee.
In opening for the Claimant her representative explained that their claim is that the Claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy. Regarding the redundancy there was no prior warning, "It was a fait accompli".
Respondent's Case:
The Tribunal heard evidence from the general manager. He explained that the Respondent is an unlimited liability company. The Respondent acquired a previous hotel (hotel AC) and all of the employee contracts transferred to the Respondent. They explained to all of the employees that every job would be secure and that there would be no redundancies.
The Claimant worked in marketing in the hotel AC, the hotel that they had acquired. However all of their marketing was done in their central hotel.
Their plan was to market the hotel. They trained the Claimant in their systems. When the Respondent focused on the Claimant's role two things became clear, one that there was not a position for a second marketing officer and the second that there was not enough work in the office. The witness explained the service of the other workers and that the Claimant was the newest person.
They met with the Claimant on 19th February 2014 to "explain that it came to a head and we would be interviewing for a position in our office and that we did not have a position for a second marketing manager and also that there was not enough work and also that there was a position that was similar available". The witness explained that they had told the employees that's there would be no redundancies but when they looked at the situation more closely. They had given the situation much consideration. There was to be a second meeting and he had an open mind on the matter.
They told the Claimant that there was not a position for a second marketing manager and if she would consider taking another position. The Claimant was disappointed.
There was a third meeting which the Claimant initiated. The meeting was for the Claimant to make a presentation to show she could retain her position. The following day he discussed it with his sister (AC) and CJ. They decided that unfortunately there was no position.
They told the Claimant and also told her that they would like her to take a position in reservations. At this point the alternative position was available. There was an alternative to keep her in marketing for two days.
The person who eventually took the job that the Claimant was offered were on a salary of €26K; they had offered the Claimant €30K because they had wanted to keep her. They were hopeful that the Claimant would agree and accept the position but she did not.
The Tribunal heard evidence from AC. She explained to the Tribunal that they decided to make the Claimant's position redundant as they did not need another marketing manager. Even though they had acquired another hotel they did not need another marketing manager because of the "group synergy". It was the first time that they had experienced a situation like this one. They offered the Claimant to work for some of the week in reservations and the other days in marketing but she turned the offer down. She did have a talk with the Claimant to ask her if she would try work for two days in marketing and that the position could grow. The Claimant spoke to her some days later and refused the offer as it would be a demotion.
The Claimant made her own proposal. The Respondent looked at the proposal but there was nothing new in it.
The witness explained that in hindsight they might have done things differently, but they were compassionate and tried to do things the right way.
The marketing manager (CJ) gave evidence. CJ has worked for the Respondent for 14 years. She manages 5 marketing executives. It was CJ's belief that when the Respondent purchased the new hotel that the Claimant would be joining the marketing team even though she was also in the marketing manager position. There was only one marketing manager position and CJ occupied it. The marketing function for the 3 hotels is centralised; the Claimant came to the centralised office for training. The Respondent informed CJ that as there was only enough work for one marketing manager they would be re-directing some of the Claimant's time.
After meeting with the Respondent owners the Claimant was going to make a presentation to them on her future plans. The Claimant asked CJ to meet her on the 27th of February to run through her presentation; this meeting lasted 5-10 minutes. They talked about the areas that there was a need for growth, namely golden years and corporate. CJ did not tell the Claimant that the presentation was as waste of time. When asked by the Claimant CJ did say that her redundancy selection was only a preliminary decision and open to review although the Respondent does not normally change his mind.
CJ was at the meeting with the Respondent when the Claimant gave her presentation. The Claimant's presentation was based on the marketing plan CJ had given her with a particular focus on corporate. CJ discussed the Claimant's presentation afterwards with the Respondent; she did have some good ideas but a lot of them were already in place. CJ did think there was an opportunity for the Claimant's ideas and as a result the Respondent offered the Claimant the alternative position. The alternative position was to work 3 days in reservations and 2 days in sales; this position had been advertised but was put on hold pending the Claimant's decision. CJ did not tell the Claimant that she would not accept the reservations role if was her decision.
Claimant's Case:
The Claimant gave comprehensive evidence of her background and experience in the industry to date. The Claimant commenced work as the sales and marketing manager in a hotel in October 2012. In October 2013 the hotel was purchased by the Respondent; the Claimant found out about the purchase in the local newspaper. The following day the Claimant met the Respondent owner and CJ at a local business meeting. The Respondent told the Claimant that he felt lucky to have her because of her considerable experience.
Following a management meeting on the 7th of January 2014 at the centralised office the Claimant was shown her new office and desk and underwent some training. The Claimant spoke to CJ about how they would move forward in their work and discussed the Claimant's strengths and where she should focus. At no point was a change in role ever discussed. The Claimant moved to the new office and settled into the role.
On the 19th of February 2014 the Respondent called the Claimant to a meeting. The Respondent informed her that they were under huge pressure as the new hotel hadn't taken off as well as they'd hoped and that something would have to be done about it. The Respondent informed the Claimant that he had a role for her in reservations as there is no room for 2 marketing managers. He said he had never made anyone redundant and that's why he was offering her the reservations role as an alternative. It was very clear to the Claimant that if she did not accept the reservations role she would be made redundant. The Claimant expressed her shock and outlined how unsuitable a reservations agent role was as an alternative to marketing manager.
The Claimant was off for two days and during this time met with CJ. CJ expressed her own shock at the reservations offer and said she would not accept it. If the Claimant accepted this reservations agent role her career would be over; it is a very small industry based on a very definite hierarchy.
The Claimant saw some gaps in the Respondent's sales and marketing plan where revenue could be generated. She asked the Respondent if she could make a presentation on same to see if she could come up with an alternative position to the reservations role. The Respondent reluctantly agreed to let the Claimant make the proposals but it was evident the decision had been made and would not be reversed. The constant response from the Respondent was that they cannot have 7 staff on the marketing team. The Claimant's proposals were not based on the current marketing plan; it was focused on pro-active selling which is the Claimant's speciality. The proposals, if implemented would have covered the Claimant's salary.
The Claimant met with the Respondent and HR two days after she gave the presentation. They said that all her ideas could be done by the existing marketing team and she needed to give them an answer to the reservations role offered. On the 10th of March, only after numerous requests did the Respondent put the reservations role offer in writing. After serious consideration the Claimant declined the alternative role offered. No other management roles were discussed in detail with the Claimant.
The Claimant gave evidence of her loss and her attempts to mitigate her loss.
Determination:
The Tribunal is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed within the Respondent as there was no need for two marketing managers and an employer is entitled to reorganise its business with fewer employees.
However the consultation process was flawed. The decision to make the Claimant redundant was made prior to the meeting on the 19th of February 2014. The Claimant's request to give a presentation was not a satisfactory consultation process. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by reason of the flawed consultation process and on unfair procedural grounds.
Compensation is the remedy sought. In considering the issue of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into account the quantum of loss alleged, the offer of alternatives by the Respondent namely the reservations position and position of receptionist and Duty Manager in the 4th of April letter, the importance the Claimant placed on her career trajectory and her efforts to secure alternative employment.
The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 succeeds and the Tribunal award the Claimant €6,500 in compensation.
Sealed with the Seal of the Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)