Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

Textile Company

Representatives

The claimant represented himself

Declan Thomas IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00029793-001

20/07/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00029793-002

20/07/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00029793-003

20/07/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006

CA-00029793-004

20/07/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00029794-001

20/07/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00029794-002

20/07/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00029794-003

20/07/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 3 of the Employees (Provision of Information & Consultation) Act, 2006

CA-00029794-004

20/07/2019

In his complaint form – received on the 20.07.2019 the claimant complained that he did not receive his public holiday entitlements and submitted as follows:

The company substituted the 26/12/18 and 1/1/19 Public holiday hours (16) to my working hours on Friday

4/1/19 (loss of 12hr shift) and Saturday 5/1/19. (shift reduced by 2 hrs) My work Rota is Friday 9pm - Sunday 12midnight. My hours of work were reduced by 14 as a result of being paid the holidays. On 28/1/19 I emailed a request to my manager as to how the company applied and calculated my annual leave and public holidays for 2018 and January 2019 but did not receive a reply. This issue was submitted as part of a list of grievances senton 1/5/19 and the company response is that I have been paid my entitlements. The company also put a holiday plan on the notice board following my query, where it stated that weekend staff would have the Friday off following a bank holiday Monday. This was only being applied to myself and K and on our

shift, but not other staff who worked weekend shifts. We were being targeted by the company for raising issues and due to my having brought the company before the WRC (ref CA-00023144) and company were aware of the complaint since December 2018. They also had a WRC inspector visit in January at my request. Witness A and Witness B were witnesses at the WRC hearing.

In his direct evidence, the claimant asserted that the company substituted public holiday hours for working hours on the 26th.Dec. 2018 and the 1st.Jan. 2019.He explained that he and his 2 colleagues worked Fri, Saturday and Sundays. The claimant took Boxing Day and New Year’s Day and the company substituted it for his weekend work. He submitted that as a result he lost 14 hours at time and 1/3. He asserted that he suffered as a result – that he had initiated his complaints against the company in Nov. 2018 and this swapping of days arose as a result to his detriment. The claimant submitted that the basis of the complaint was the non-payment for the Friday following New Year’s Day. The claimant said the same thing happened on Paddy’s day when KL advised that the factory would be closed. The claimant reiterated that this arrangement did not apply to other staff who worked a weekend shift.

The respondent submitted that the claimant received the entirety of his public holiday entitlements and presented copies of payslips into evidence in support of their position.

The respondent stated that there was no breach of the Act and that as was evidenced by the payslips the claimant was paid his full Annual leave entitlement and his public holiday entitlements. The manager KL said the factory was not set up to work the shift on Friday 4th.Jan and that his 2 colleagues who worked on the shift with the claimant were unavailable and out of the country. It was submitted that the claimant did not work on the 4th.Jan. 2019 and consequently was not entitled to payment for that day. The respondent denied that there was any penalisation – the claimant’s colleagues were in Poland and not available for work. It was submitted that where someone works a Public Holiday, they get double time and that they get a day off in lieu. It was accepted that the claimant did incur a loss in hours. It was submitted that where staff don’t work on a Public Holiday, they get paid for the day.

The claimant submitted that he was penalised for having performed the functions of an employee representative. He submitted as follows in his complaint form:

The Company held an election on 1/4/2019 and I was elected as an Employee Safety Representative in order for them to comply with the Safety, Health and Welfare at work Act 2005. I had received training in the role on my own time the year previously. On 5 occasions from 20th February I emailed the Company requesting Safety

Statements be made available. I also requested Hazard Identification and Risk Assessments associated. My requests were ignored over a period of weeks. I then contacted the HSA for advice (their ref 138503) and they contacted the company. Their refusals to provide the information requested above formed part of a Grievance letter I sent to the company on 1/5/19. 18/5/19 - I am at work and staff (K) reported a dangerous fault in a

wooden floor upstairs, when I went to inspect there was another member of staff (D) working in the area, unaware of the problem. I got D to assist, area was cordoned off, made safe, and warning signs were put up. I sent a video of the problem and text message to my manager K, and he called in later to inspect. KL he had been off through an injury at work and was not given the chance to return to work then gave me the Safety Statements to read. The Hazard ID's or Risk Assessments relevant to our work were not contained within the Safety statements. They were never furnished to me. 16/6/19 @ 9:30 pm I had a workplace accident, I tripped over a bracket which was a modification added to the Loom I was working on about 18 months previously, I had X-rays taken as a precaution and I had hoped to be back working within a few weeks.The company was paying my full wage for 3 weeks when the company made me redundant on 7/7/2019.

In his direct evidence the claimant asserted that he was off through an injury at work and that he was not given the chance to return to work – he asserted that this constituted penalisation and that this was relevant because he incurred an injury at work. The claimant contended that by virtue of the fact that he raised health and safety issues at work with the respondent – this was a contributory factor to his redundancy.

The respondent denied any breach of the Act and contended that the complaint was misconceived. The respondent submitted as follows :

(8.1) The Claimant alleges that he was not provided with copies of the company safety

statements following his election as Employee Safety Representative on 1st April

2019 and alleges as a result of same that there was an infringement of the above Act.

(8.2) The Claimant obviously has a misconception as to the applicability of the said

legislation in respect to the matter in which he seeks to refer this complaint.

(8.3) In short, the Act requires employers who meet the requisite threshold to provide

employees with information on developments (recent & future) affecting the

economic situation and activities of the business. It also requires employers to inform

and consult employees on developments affecting employment in the workplace and

in particular, on decisions likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation or

in contractual relations. In this regard, the Act specifically refers to proposed or

anticipated business acquisitions and collective redundancies.

The Act has no application in respect to the matter that the Claimant refers.

(8.4) The obligations for employers under the Act will only apply where a written request is made by 10% of employees (but not less than 15 or more than 100 employees) to the

employer or to the Labour Court to enter into negotiations to establish information

and consultation arrangements.

Therefore, again the provisions of the legislation do not apply or have no application

in respect to the matter that the Claimant seeks to refer.

(8.5) Lastly, the Claimant does not fall within the definition of “Employee Representative”

within the definition as laid down in the Act. Section (6) (1) provides

(1) In this Act, “employees’ representative” means an employee elected or

appointed for the purposes of this Act.

The Claimant was never elected either formally or informally by the employer or his

trade union for representation purposes under this Act nor was he penalised in any

way under this Act as a result of being elected as Employee Safety Representative.

Conclusion

The Respondent requests that the Adjudicator for the reasons set out above find that

the said complaint is not well founded.

Mr.KL gave evidence of the Health & Safety Rep arrangements in terms of nominations for the position of Health & Safety Rep. and explained that there had been some confusion when the claimant and another party put their names forward – as a result of which they organised a new election. The witness stated that the claimant reported the company to the Health & Safety authority arising from which an inspection was carried out. It was denied that there was any penalisation of the claimant. The respondent’s rep asserted that the complaint was misconceived and inappropriately lodged under this Act.

The claimant asserted that he was unfairly selected for redundancy and submitted as follows in his complaint form:

On 7/7/19 I was dismissed for reasons of alleged redundancy. I was offered no advance notice, there was no information of any justification (economically) for any such decision, there was no selection/qualification process for me to understand why I was picked for dismissal, I was not given any alternative (redeployment)option, I was not given any time ahead to look for alternative employment. There was no process, but just a

decision communicated to me with immediate effect. 26/6/19 - Received invitation to consultation re restructuring of working arrangements. 29/6/19 - Given a Practice Proposal, weekend Shift being discontinued possibly, I was asked by Tony Leahy to submit my ideas to him by 5pm the following Wednesday (3/7/19) on

how I could be redeployed. 2/7/19 - Received a letter confirming above and invitation to a meeting to discuss option following Sunday. (7/7/19) 7/7/19 - Made Redundant, no options for redeployment were put forward by the company.

In reply to the respondent’s defence of the complaint the claimant submitted as follows:

The Respondent has produced voluminous submissions totalling over one forty pages.

The Claimant respects the fact that the Respondent is entitled to present its case and defend it with all means available however a certain consideration for the economy and appreciation for the resources and time of the WRC should be respected

.

The Claimant – in an effort to heed the above principle – will endeavour to make representations by way of Replies to Submissions that should maintain clarity and preserve the need of brevity, relevance and accuracy.

The Claimant may appreciate the literary style and narrative skill in the Respondent’s representative manner of presentation but will hold themselves – in response thereto – restrained by the principles of relevance and brevity as aforesaid.

SUBMISSIONS ON POINTS OF LAW

PROCESS

Unfair process of selection is sufficient grounds to find redundancy dismissal unfair notwithstanding other criteria being satisfied

1. Section 2(3) of the 1977 Act provides that a claimant who has been unfairly selected for redundancy has been unfairly dismissed. In order to prove an unfair selection it must be shown firstly that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more employees in similar employment with the claimant who were not made redundant and secondly that the reason for the redundancy was for one of the prima facie unfair reasons outlined in Section 2(2) or was unjustifiably in contravention of an agreed procedure relating to redundancy.1

2. The Tribunal2 appear to take a wide approach to the concept of proper procedures for choosing candidates for redundancy. In a number of decisions in the recent past they appear to have imposed an obligation of fair procedures on how this selection is carried out, even there is no express reference to that requirement in the legislation. An example of this can be seen in the case of Robert Power where the Tribunal found as follows:

1 Tom Mallon BL (2009) Bar Council Seminar on Employment Law [CPD], Dublin: Law Library.

2 In when the EAT was in operation or until it was abolished/phased out

3 UD154/10

4 A. Murphy, M.Regan (2017) Employment Law, 2 edn., London: Bloomsbury 19.54, p.789 (Redundancy)

“The Tribunal considered that the claimant was unfairly dismissed as although it is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed, the Tribunal unanimously determines that the procedure for selection for redundancy was wholly unfair….. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that a company is entitled to select candidates for redundancy, a company must act fairly and conscientiously in dealing with those candidates regarding selection.”3

3. For redundancy selection to be fair, objective selection criteria must be reasonably applied to the correct pool of employees. In particular, the pool of selection must be reasonably defined and the selection criteria employed by the employer must be applied to all employees in “similar employment”4

4. The employer would have some flexibility in deciding what the redundancy pool should be provided that they have considered the issue and acted genuinely and reasonably. Factors that may be relevant in identifying the correct pool are whether other group of employees are doing similar work to the group, have similar qualifications and training as the pool of employees from which selections are made.

5. LIST OF DETERMINATIONS OF RELEVANT IN THE SUBJECT MATTER COMPLAINT

5.1 In Moran v Ernst&Young6 the EAT determined that the selection from the pool of three was unfair where only one of the three in in the pool was told that his job was at risk.

5.2 In Mulqueen v Prometric Ireland7 the EAT criticised the fact that the impacted employee being made redundant had no prior knowledge of the criteria (matrix)used for selection of redundancy

5.3 In Case No. UD206 / 20118 the Employment Appeals Tribunal stated: “When an employer is making an employee redundant, while retaining other employees, the selection criteria being used should be objectively applied in a fair manner.”

The EAT went on to list some of the deficiencies in that particular case:

“There was no serious or worthwhile consultation with the claimant prior to making her redundant. The consultation should be real and substantial.

No suitable or substantial consideration was given to alternatives to dismissing the claimant by reason of redundancy.

There was no worthwhile discussion in relation to the criteria used for selecting the claimant. The selection criteria should apply to all employees working in the same area as the claimant but should also consider other positions which the claimant is capable of doing.”

6. Further, the written reasons for determination in the above matter state:

There was no evidence presented as regards any objective and transparent selection criteria being utilised prior to deciding that the complainant be made redundant nor of the financial considerations faced by the respondent that required a reduction in staff levels. (…) I also note that the complainant was not advised of any process by which he could appeal the decision on the termination of his employment.

5 ibid

6 Moran v Ernst&Young [UD12/2011]

7 Mulqueen v Prometric Ireland [UD1259/2012]

8 Parties undisclosed in publicly available records – GDPR 2018 Regs apply

7. The above submitted list of decisions seem to form a pattern in which the statutes are uniformly and systemically interpreted and construed as applied to different case scenarios thus forming the stare decisis to be applied.

8. The circumstances and elements of this case attract the above principles in law and adjudication to be applied in like manner ceteris paribus.

9. I the Claimant in the above entitled action do enter and rely in our cause on the events and opinions in our factual submissions and propose the letter of law to be applied in accordance with the aforesaid authorities and reasoning.

10. I respectfully invite the Adjudication Office the consider the above in applying the law in the subject matter claim.

The claimant made the following submissions regarding employees that had been taken on by the respondent since he was made redundant:

The claimant submitted that the following personnel were recruited in same or similar positions to the claimant:

Mr.D.M., Mr.D.R., Mr.D.R., Mr.B.H., Mr.E.H., Mr.C.L.,Mr.D.L., Mr.E.B., Ms.T.K. & Ms.A.A.It was submitted that the claimant was not contacted or offered an opportunity of employment following his dismissal and the dismissal of his colleagues.It was argued that this supported the claimant’s contention that there was no genuine redundancy and the dismissal was a sham operation.

Under cross examination the claimant confirmed that he had been spoken to and disciplined for errors that arose during his shift – the claimant asserted that at the time there was no remedy available to appeal that decision. The claimant was adamant that he was led to believe by the company that redundancy was a last resort. It was put to the claimant that he was familiar with industrial relations procedures having been a Shop Steward and that he chose to go directly to the WRC without referring the rest break issue to the union. It was put to the claimant that the company ad made it clear in their correspondence that he would have time to consider alternatives to redundancy – the claimant responded that the company had no intention of considering alternatives – he reiterated that he was led to believe that redundancy was a last resort. The claimant stated that he expected he would be presented with proposals at the July meeting and that he would have a few days to come back with a response.

The claimant stated that he was expecting to be presented with some form of redeployment proposals. He asserted that staff with less experience were kept on and no evidence had been presented to substantiate the claim that alternatives to redundancy had been explored.

The claimant asserted that the company continued to be in breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act with respect to rest breaks. He made numerous allegations about HR practises in the company and referred to his previous complaint to the WRC which he maintained was upheld.

The claimant asserted that he had made numerous efforts to mitigate his loss. The claimant contended that he was made redundant while on sick leave owing to a workplace injury. He complained that his son was let go from the employment because “the reason for not getting hours and being replaced was because he was my son”. The claimant submitted that he and his 2 colleagues were blacklisted in their locality and he had to travel an hour from home to secure work in January 2020.He asked that the maximum award be made in light of the respondent’s culture and HR record.

The respondent denied that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed and submitted as follows:

(5.1) Adjudicator, this element of the Claimants claim concerns a complaint under the

Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977. The Claimant alleges that his former employer unfairly

dismissed him on the 7th July 2019. The Respondent refutes this claim in its entirety

and submits that the Claimant’s dismissal was not unfair within the meaning of

section 6(4)(c) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2007 as it resulted wholly or

mainly from redundancy.

(5.2) The Claimant’s employment ended on 7th July 2019 following an internal review

which was undertaken by the Respondent company of their carpet plant in Kc to

assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the manufacturing facility and to identify if

the business needs were been adequately met with the current operating profile.

(5.3) This review was prompted by the formulation of their 3-year strategic plan which

indicated price pressures and increasing raw materials costs, which lead to significant

margin erosion. To ensure the company remained as a viable going concern the board

of directors requested this review to take place and had authorised immediate

corrective measure to be implemented to ensure current operations were running as

efficiently as possible as well as reducing financial pressure whilst ensuring the

company met changes in their business needs.

(5.4) The Claimant worked on a weekend shift which was commonly known as shift 1. The

shift pattern in question was introduced 12 years previously when the respondent first

entered the carpet sector. Being totally unsupported by ancillary staff, this shift was

intended to run uninterrupted batch quantities of non-complex standard carpet

designs, which required no technical, design or maintenance support.

(5.5) However, the company identified that in the last 2 years customers’ needs had

changed substantially and that a production shift designed for long runs without

support could not successfully meet their requirements. The Company’s proposal in

this respect included the following;

It was proposed that a restructure was required for shift A for the

following reasons.

o The A shift is now required to run smaller order quantities. Smaller batch runs

therefore require major changeovers during the shift which simply does not

have the staff available to complete effectively. Significant downtime is

occurred when changeovers are required.

o Carpet designs are now more complex than when we first entered the market,

and quality/managerial functions are not available to the A shift to make

immediate assessment of potential issues.

o Samples being run on the A shift cannot be supported by design staff because

of out of hours. Our customers demand a quick turn around on sample

requests, whilst using more complex designs and materials. This requirement

cannot be fulfilled by A shift.

Shift A cannot run effectively and does not meet our business needs.

Proposed Re-structure

To support Shift A, headcount would have to be doubled to include an engineer, a

designer and a supervisor. This additional manpower requirements would more than

double the shift cost and would further increase the financial pressures on the

Company, therefore the board have decided that this option is not a viable prospect

and cost prohibitive to pursue.

The board has proposed that Shift A be dis-counted as it no longer meets the needs of

the business and does not make a sustainable financial return. As a result of this

proposal, employees who currently work on this shift would be directly affected. This

proposed re-structuring may ultimately result in those positions becoming redundant.

The Company are currently considering whether these are alternative areas within the

business structure whereby those employees directly affected by this re-structuring

might be re-deployed.

The Company will consult directly with these employees as to whether they believe

their employment could be continued and if so how, and also if there were any

alternatives to the proposed redundancy.

(5.6) By letter dated 24th June 2019 (Appendix 3) the Claimant was invited to a

consultation meeting to be held on Saturday 29th June to discuss operational and

staffing requirements of the company going forward. The Claimant was advised in the

said letter that the company was currently considering a restructure of how work in

the company would be conducted going forward and that any proposals currently

under consideration may impact on his current role within the company. He was also

advised of his right to be appropriately represented at the said consultation meeting.

(5.7) On 29th June 2019 the said meeting went ahead and was attended by the Claimant and

his representative Ms. M.H, Mr. K.L. Plant Manager and Mr.T.L. Financial Controller for the Respondent.

(5.8) The Claimant was informed at the meeting that a review of the Respondents facility in Kc had been carried out and the reasons for such were also outlined, in particular,

that the shift that the Claimant was currently working on was not making a sustainable

financial return and the company were considering ending that shift. The Claimant

was advised that his role may become redundant as a result but that no decisions had

been made as this was a proposal only and no decisions were made at that stage. The

Claimant was further advised that the company were looking at alternative roles

and/or redeployment within the company for personnel working that shift and was

also advised to put forward any proposals that he may have in respect of alternative

work or potential areas of redeployment that he may be available to do. Notes from

the said meeting are attached at (Appendix 4).

(5.9) The Claimant was provided with a copy of the Report (Appendix 5) into the review

of the proposed restructure and it was agreed that a time and date for a further meeting

would follow when the Claimant had an opportunity to put forward any proposals he

may have in respect of the Report and/or any proposals he had to make in respect of

the proposed restructuring.

(5.10) By letter dated 1st July 2019 (Appendix 6) the Claimant was provided with a detailed summary of the meeting held on 29th June and advised on the next steps in respect ofthe process under review. The Claimant was again advised in the said letter that no

decisions about his future employment would be made until such time as he had a

chance to express his views on the situation and also the Respondent had a chance to

consider all the available information and possible options or alternatives to any

proposed redundancy. The Claimant was also asked in the said letter to put forward in

writing any proposals that he wished to be considered ahead of a proposed meeting to

be held on 7th July 2019 of which he was again advised of his right to representation.

(5.11) No alternative ideas were put forward by the Claimant in respect to this

communication.

(5.12) A further meeting went ahead as scheduled on 7th July 2019. The meeting was

attended by the Claimant and his representative Ms. M.H. Notes from the

said meeting are attached at (Appendix 7).

(5.13) At this meeting the Claimant was advised that his role was being made redundant and given the reasons why. The Respondent explained what the redundancy payment

would be including any holiday pay owed and pay in lieu of notice and all the

required documentation was given to the Claimant at the said meeting (also attached

at Appendix 7).

(6) COMPANY ARGUMENTS

(6.1) It is the Respondent’s position that the dismissal of the Claimant was wholly and

mainly as a result of his role being redundant. His dismissal was not unfair within the

meaning of Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 which states:

“[…] the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act,

not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the

following:

[…]

( c ) the redundancy of the employee […]”

(6.2) The Claimant’s position became redundant within the meaning of Section 7(2) of the

Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2003 on the grounds that the Respondent had

decided to carry on the business with fewer employees because the work for which the

Claimant was employed had changed dramatically over the time that the shift was first

introduced and that it was no longer viable for the company to continue this shift as it

was not generating any sustainable financial return. Also, the non-availability of

technical support on the shift was a determining factor and to provide same would further

be cost prohibitive to the financial sustainability of the said shift.

(6.3) In accordance with Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007, “redundancy”

is defined as per Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007, as

follows:

“[…] an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of

redundancy if, for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned, the

dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—[…]

( b ) the fact that the requirements of that business 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 […]

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no

employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been

employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees

or otherwise […]”

(6.4) Considering that definition, a genuine redundancy situation clearly existed with respect to the Claimant’s position.

(6.5) Aside from the above, the method used by the Respondent to identify the issues which led to the question of redundancy were fair and transparent.

(6.6) The Respondent acted reasonably and fairly at all times. The Respondent wishes to

highlight Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 which states:

“[…] in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, if

the rights commissioner, the Tribunal or the Circuit Court, as the case may be,

considers it appropriate to do so—

( a ) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or

omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal”

(6.7) In this instance it is the Respondent’s position that it acted reasonable at all times. The Respondent had been considering the efficiency and sustainability of the business and

had taken all factors into account in assessing the difficulties experienced on the

weekend shift as well as the efficiency of how the work was being done. The

Respondent compiled a report on such matters and discussed the contents of the report

and the proposal being put forward with the Claimant in consultation. The Claimant

was also afforded the opportunity to put his views forward including the opportunity to

express his views in respect of the proposal which he failed to do. No further comment

was received by the Claimant and no alternative proposals regarding redeployment

were received from the Clamant for consideration by the Respondent ahead of the

scheduled meeting.

(6.8) All alternatives to the redundancy of the Claimant were considered by the Respondent

in detail, however at that time no suitable or viable alternative employment existed for

the Claimant within the company.

(6.9) Throughout the redundancy process and in the course of all meetings held the Claimant was offered the right to be represented and availed of this right. This process was fairand reasonable and cannot be seen to have resulted in any element of unfairness in

respect of the redundancy.

(6.10) Due process and procedure regarding consultation with the affected employees was

adhered to at all times. The Claimant was afforded all rights and fair opportunities of

consultation and the provision of information pertaining to the redundancy situation.

(6.11) For a claim of unfair dismissal on grounds of redundancy under the Acts to succeed theClaimant must show that the employer has conflicted with Section 6(3) of the Acts. It

is the Respondent’s position, in the context of the foregoing, that no breach of Section

6(3) of the Unfair Dismissal’s Act 1977 occurred in this instance.

(6.12) As such the Respondent acted reasonable regarding the redundancy of the Claimant and the Respondent requests that in light of Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissal’s Act, 1977,

that the Adjudicator take the reasonableness of the employer into account in reaching a

decision, including the commercial realities and sustainability of the business into the

future.

(6.13) The Respondents now operates its business in the absence of any weekend shift at that facility and the three employees affected by the cessation of that shift have not and will

not be replaced.

CONCLUSION

In light of the above arguments, the Respondent respectfully requests that the

Adjudication Officer finds that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed but was

otherwise terminated by reason of redundancy, and that this claim under the Unfair

Dismissal’s Act 1977 be rejected.

Mr.TL set out the backdrop to the decision to make the claimant and his colleagues redundant. He stated they met the claimants to get their views – he asserted that they considered redeployment but concluded there were no roles available to which the claimants could be assigned. The respondent said they did not consider layoffs – this was a precarious industry and it was advanced that the company had been in liquidation back in 1995.It was submitted that the company was reasonable in indicating that alternatives if any would be put forward at the 7th.July meeting.Mr.TL was adamant that he would not have used the term guarantee of redundancy as a last resort. He said that at the 27th.June meeting he stressed to the claimant that redundancies were only proposals at that stage and expected proposals to come forward from the claimants. If more time for consideration was needed it would have been given.Mr.TL reiterated that there was no maintenance, back up or technical support available for Shift A.He denied that there was availability of hours in either plant.