FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CHEMICAL INSPECTION AND REGULATION SERVICE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Claim of unfair selection for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by the Worker for compensation arising from her claim that she was unfairly selected for redundancy. She had eight months' service with the Employer and she said that on returning from annual leave in April 2017 she was told that her position was no longer viable and that she was to be made redundant. She said that within two months her position was advertised by a recruitment agency.
On the 11 July 2017, the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17 August 2017. The Employer did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. She worked for the Employer for eight months during which time the Employer never raised any issues about her work.
2. She offered to work part-time if there was a temporary shortage of work.
3. Her position has since been advertised twice by a recruitment agency.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
The Worker was employed by the Respondent as a full-time Administrative Assistant at its offices in Ardee, Co. Louth from 2 August 2016 until her dismissal - by reason of purported redundancy - took effect on 24 May 2017. She was, in fact, given written notice of termination ‘with immediate effect’ on 26 April 2017 and paid in lieu of four weeks’ notice, as per the terms of her contract of employment. Her annual salary was €25,500.00 per annum. The Worker received no negative appraisal of her work during her period of employment with the Respondent.
The Respondent did not attend at the hearing of this matter. The uncontested submission of the Worker is that the Respondent, subsequent to her dismissal, advertised, on two occasions, for a part-time Administrative Assistant via a recruitment agency. The Worker contacted the agency on both occasions and agency personnel confirmed to her that the position advertised was an administrative one with her former employer and was being offered on the same terms and conditions as those under which she had been employed, save that, on each occasion, the employer was seeking to fill the position on a part-time basis.
The Worker told the Court that, to date, she has been unsuccessful in securing alternative employment although she has submitted an average of ten job applications per week since her dismissal.
Discussion and Decision
The Respondent determined to make the Worker’s position redundant without any prior notice or discussion with the Worker. It did so in circumstances where, without doubt, it had an ongoing need for an Administrative Assistant, at least on a part-time basis, as is evidenced by the advertisements it subsequently placed with the recruitment agency. It follows, in all the circumstances, that the decision to terminate the Worker’s employment was both procedurally and substantively unfair. Before making the decision to terminate her employment, the Respondent should have advised the Worker that it was reviewing its requirement for a full-time Administrative Assistant and should have offered her the option of taking the role on a part-time basis.
Having regard to the Worker’s salary level and her losses to date, the Court recommends that the Respondent pay her compensation of €6,500.00 (i.e. the equivalent of approximately 13 weeks’ gross pay).
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
28th August, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.