EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM(S) OF: CASE NO.
Philip Godkin -claimant
UD633/2015
against
G4S Cash Solutions Ireland Limited -respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2015
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. M. Levey B.L.
Members: Mr. B. Kealy
Mr. J. Dorney
heard this claim at Dublin on 29th September 2016 and 7th December 2016
Representation:
Claimant: Ms. Rithika Moore-Vaderaa B.L. instructed by PC Moore, Solicitors, 39 Westland Row, Dublin 2
Respondent: Ms Laura Reynolds, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2
Summary of evidence:
Dismissal as a fact was not in dispute between the parties.
The claimant was employed in the position of Section Manager with the respondent company from November 2013 to April 2015. It was the company’s case that the claimant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy. It was the claimant’s case that a genuine redundancy did not exist and that there were three issues in the employment which had not been addressed including that his employment had been threatened by the National Operations Manager. The claimant believed this was linked to the company’s decision to terminate his employment.
It was the evidence of the Human Resources Director that the company had restructured in 2013 and 2014. The redundancy of the claimant’s position arose as a result of a further restructure in 2015 which gave rise to a further 30 redundancies. The Human Resources Director was satisfied that staff were aware of ongoing efforts over a number of years to return the company to profitability. It was the claimant’s evidence that he was unaware of a further restructuring during 2015.
The company used the selection criteria of last in first out in each restructuring. The claimant had the least amount of service of the section managers and therefore his position was selected for redundancy. A number of personnel forms were opened to the Tribunal showing the start dates for a number of employees. A restructuring proposal document was also opened to the Tribunal. The claimant stated that he first had sight of this document on the first day of the EAT hearing.
It was the company’s case that it engaged in a 30 day consultation process with the claimant with a view to finding him alternative work but that no alternatives were accepted by the claimant.
It was the claimant’s evidence that he was told by his line manager to attend a meeting about training on the 30th March 2015. When he attended he was informed that his position was being made redundant as his role was being consolidated. The claimant became upset as he had no notice of the meeting and he had not been provided with an opportunity to contact his union. A letter dated 30th March 2015 was opened to the Tribunal. It was provided to the claimant at the meeting but remained unopened. The letter confirmed to the claimant that the company was giving him notice of its intention to make his position redundant. The claimant stated that he was not informed at the meeting how his position had been selected. The letter also informed the claimant that options could be discussed with him during the notice period.
It was the Human Resources Director’s evidence that the claimant was informed at the first meeting that his role was at risk, that his position would be made redundant and that he would be consulted in relation to the redundancy. The first meeting held with him was the start of the consultation process.
It was the claimant’s evidence that within minutes of leaving that meeting he was told by his line manager that he was no longer working in the company and that he must return items including a company mobile phone. The claimant protested at the time stating that he still had a month’s notice before the proposed redundancy. He outlined to the Tribunal the reasons for wanting to retain the company mobile phone. However, despite these reasons the company phone was disconnected after that first meeting.
A second meeting was held with the claimant and his union representative on the 1st April 2015. Prior to this meeting the claimant raised with his union representative the issues that had taken place in the employment prior to the 30th March 2015. He also told the representative that he felt targeted and that his position had been threatened by the National Operations Manager in January 2015.
At the meeting on the 1st April his representative raised the fact that there had been no co-operation with the union regarding the redundancy and that a consultation should have taken place. The claimant recalled the Human Resources Director stating that there had been a lot of redundancies but the union representative protested that the union had not been made aware of any further redundancies. The claimant was informed at this meeting that there were no alternative roles. The union representative argued that the claimant should be returned to his position until the company entered a consultation process with the union. It was the claimant’s evidence that there was a reference in this meeting to the redundancy of his position being “outside” the 30 other redundancies. As he was unaware of any other restructure at that time he thought that his was the only position being selected for redundancy in the branch where he worked. The Human Resources Director gave evidence that she understood from this meeting that the claimant was disputing that he was the last person in terms of service.
The claimant outlined again at the meeting the necessity of retaining the company phone. He was assured the matter would be rectified but this did not occur.
It was the claimant’s evidence that the consolidated position was not offered to him nor was he given access to internal vacancies. During the period of 1stApril to 23rd April the claimant had no contact with the company and no access to the workplace.
The claimant emailed on 23rd April 2015 to the Human Resources Director stating that he understood he had one month’s notice to discuss options with the company and that he wanted to know what options were available as he had not received any contact since the 1st April 2015. It was the claimant’s evidence that by the time that he wrote this email he had become vexed with the union as the matter was to be referred internally in the union but he heard nothing further.
The Human Resources Director replied in writing stating that she had not contacted the claimant as his union representative had informed her that the claimant was taking legal action on the matter and did not wish to engage further. She sent the claimant details of positions available in the group of companies but reiterated that 30 roles on the cash side of the business were being made redundant.
In order to clarify with the company that he had been misrepresented by the union the claimant sought a meeting. On the 30th April 2015 a redundancy review meeting was conducted. At that meeting the claimant expressed his interest in the Financial Analyst Role which had been sent to him but stated that the role was not online when he had looked the previous evening. The Human Resources Director informed him that the role was no longer vacant.
However, the Security Officer role was still vacant and the claimant expressed an interest in this role if his service carried as was the usual case. The Human Resources Manager informed him that this was not possible as the role was with a different entity within the group and the claimant would have to apply and be interviewed for the role. The claimant did not apply for this role as his service did not carry. No other roles were available. The claimant also queried at the meeting the fact that he had been told that he was outside of the 30 redundancies that were planned.
During cross examination the claimant accepted that he had the least service of all of the section managers. However, he believed that the role of Vault Manager should have been included in the selection pool as that role was also a section manager role. The claimant had greater service than the employee carrying out the role of Vault Manager. It was the claimant’s case that the role had the same terms and conditions as his own role, the same work hours and was part of the same pool of managers who covered weekends on rotation. The claimant did not accept in cross-examination that this role was different and more technical than his own role. The claimant stated that he could have carried out the Vault Manager role as an alternative to redundancy and indeed he had done so when covering for that employee’s sick leave. The claimant did acknowledge that he was not trained in the full remit of the Vault Manager’s role but that would not have taken much time to complete. During cross-examination the claimant accepted that the Vault Manager did not have to interview for his position during previous restructures whereas the claimant did have to as a section manager.
It was the evidence of the Human Resources Manager that the claimant had raised the matter regarding the Vault Manager during the meetings. She disagreed that the Vault Manager should have been included in the section manager selection pool. It was a different role.
The claimant gave evidence of his financial loss and his efforts to mitigate that loss.
Determination:
The Tribunal carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced. The Tribunal is satisfied that a genuine redundancy of the claimant’s position arose. However, the procedures adopted by the company in implementing the redundancy were lacking. It is clear from the evidence adduced that the company considered the claimant’s position redundant on the 30th March 2015, the date of the first meeting. The claimant was not given any advance warning of the meeting nor given an opportunity to bring a representative to the meeting. The Tribunal therefore finds that the dismissal of the claimant amounts to an unfair dismissal. The Tribunal finds the appropriate sum of compensation to be €15,000 under the Unfair Dismissal Acts, 1977 to 2007.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)