EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Stephen Ford, RP361/2015
-Appellant
against
Dolphin Rugby Football Club
-Respondent
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms S. McNally
Members: Ms M. Sweeney
Mr. D. McEvoy
heard this appeal in Cork on 7 September 2016 and 16 November 2016
Representation:
Appellant: Ms Julie O’Leary BL instructed by
Ms Amanda Neville for Ms Amy Murphy, Rachel O'Toole Solicitors, City Park House,
20/21 Sullivan's Quay, Cork
Respondent: Mr. Barry O'Meara, Barry G. O'Meara & Company, Solicitors, Pembroke House, Pembroke Street,
Cork
Background:
After the chairperson introduced the division and secretary to the parties the respondent’s representative applied for the case to be heard in camera on the grounds that a journalist was present and that there was no public interest in financial information about a private rugby club.
The appellant’s representative said that the appellant had no objection to the application but that employee rights were of public interest.
The Tribunal was conscious that there could be financial issues and a detrimental effect such that a part of a hearing might be heard in camera. The respondent’s representative said that he had one main witness and might possibly call two others.
The appellant’s representative said that she had only the appellant as a witness and that the club’s finances might have relevance but not hugely so.
The respondent’s representative said that financial issues went to the heart of the matter. Publicity would have a detrimental effect for the respondent’s recruiting going forward. The respondent was a small sporting club.
When the Tribunal pointed out that journalists generally had a right to attend hearings the respondent’s representative said that it was all interconnected and that there could be a detrimental effect.
The Appellant’s representative said that she had nothing further to add.
The Tribunal considered the question of the respondent’s finances coming up in a public forum and felt that financial information would need to come out which could be detrimental for the respondent which was entitled to privacy. The Tribunal had to strive for balance but, in this case, felt obliged to hold the hearing in camera. The division had to make appropriate enquiries and a determination would issue after the case was heard in full.
The division apologised to the journalist present. The said journalist accepted the ruling very graciously and left.
The case was adjourned to be heard over a full day in November 2016 so that all relevant evidence could be heard.
Hearing commences on 16th November 2016:
Respondent opening: the respondent contends that the appellant was taken on as an assistant rugby coach in 2008 to 2009. He was appointed head coach in 2009. The appellant role was to be a seasonal appointment from September to April, with a lead in time. The contract was mutually agreed and the appellant was fully aware of the terms of the contract. The respondent contends that the appellant is not entitled to redundancy because his contracts were fixed term contracts. Specifically there is a clause 8 in the contracts that provides for termination and that the role is seasonal. The appellant was paid €6000.00, in lieu of any claim.
The appellant representative contends that the RP Act is clear in that the non-renewal of the FTC amounts to a redundancy situation. The clause 8 in the contract cannot replace a Statutory provision.
Respondent case:
The Tribunal heard evidence from MM the club treasurer from 2015 to 2016. He is also a member of the general purpose committee for 44 years. The general purpose committee (GPM) had agreed terms of employment with the Appellant. The first contract of employment (COE) of 2009 to 2010, as assistant head coach, was agreed with the Appellant. In the COE for 2009 to 2010 there was a clause to do with termination. This was similar to the last COE for 2014. The Appellant was fully aware of the clause and it meant that in the event that his COE was not renewed then he would be monetarily compensated. When the last COE was not renewed the Appellant was compensated in that a first payment was made to him: the compensation was sought by the Appellant.
Determination:`
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced and submissions made at the hearings. In reaching a decision the Tribunal referred in particular to Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 as follows:
- (1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payments provided-
(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and
(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of two years ending on that date.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—
(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or
(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish. | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Tribunal determines that the appellant was a full time employee as he had continuous contracts of employment from 2008 to 2009 from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2015. These were contracts for full time employment. The Tribunal notes that a redundancy situation cannot be excluded by way of a contract. The Tribunal determines that the appellant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. |
|
|
Accordingly the Tribunal awards the appellant a redundancy lump sum under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007, based on the following information: Date of commencement: 01st June 2007 Date of cessation: 30th April 2015 Gross weekly pay: €846.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)