Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patrick  Lawlor

Murray Pub Group T/A Telstar Investments Murrays/The Hill/The Living Room/Lundyfoot + co/Fibber Magees/Tom Clarks

Representatives

Bébhinn Murphy BL instructed by Jennifer Egan Solicitor 

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00052070-001

03/08/2022

The Complainant was a long-standing employee of the Respondent, which was his family’s business.

In 2021, the Respondent was reopening a pub and the Complainant was put in charge of the project as General Manager of that pub. 

In July 2021, the Group General Manager, Mr Shane Dooley informed the Complainant that he was being removed from that position.

The Complainant has argued that he was made redundant at this point but not paid his statutory redundancy entitlement.

The Respondent has argued that the Complainant had served many roles while working for the Respondent organisation. Concerns had arisen about his ability to deliver in this specific role but that they envisaged him continuing in a different role on a similar salary. However following his removal from the role he stopped working for them and took a job elsewhere.

A hearing was held to consider these matters on the 27th of March 2022.

The Complainant attended and was assisted in presenting his case by his sister, Tracey Lawlor. He gave evidence under affirmation.

The Respondent attended represented by Ms Beibhinn Murphy BL, instructed by Ms Jennifer Egan Solicitor. The Respondent’s owner, Mr Ross Murray attended and gave evidence under affirmation. The Respondent’s Group General Manager, Shane Treacy, attended and gave evidence under affirmation. Ms Mary O’Reilly, the Respondent’s Group HR Director, attended and gave evidence under affirmation.

Each parties were given the opportunity to cross examine the other’s witnesses.

The Complainant attended the hearing and provided evidence.

He had been working for the Respondent pub group since he left school.

In 2021 he moved to manage a reopening of a bar the Respondent had brought back under their direct management.

He was suddenly side-lined and dismissed from that role on the 29th of July 2021. He met with the board subsequently but was told that the job was no longer there for him. He received no redundancy payment.

The Respondent’s provided submissions and evidence outlining that the Complainant was a valued member of the family business who had been retained throughout covid.

He was given his own bar to open and manage in 2021. However, the opening stalled. The Respondent attempted to provide appropriate mentoring but ultimately decided that they needed to take Mr Lawlor off the role. They sought to reassign him to another role within the company but the relationship broke down.

The role the Complainant was reassigned from was filled by an outside hire. The Complainant was not dismissed.

This matter has been referred to me under the Redundancy Payments Act. The Complainant is asserting an entitlement, under section 7 of that act, to be paid a redundancy payment.

Section 7 Subsection 2 outlines the situations in which an entitlement to a redundancy payment might arise.

Specifically, it says:

……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—

(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 in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(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, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,]

The Respondent provided detailed oral evidence regarding the Complainant being removed from the General Manager role. They are clear that the General Manager role itself did not change and that the issues arose from the Complainant’s inability to fulfil that role satisfactorily. There were weekly performance related meetings and ongoing engagement from Mr Treacy regarding tasks he felt were not being done on time. The Complainant was then replaced as General Manager by an outside hire who proceeded to open the new pub for the Respondent.   

The Complainant also provided evidence. While there were significant differences between him and the Respondent about what said to him on the 29th of July 2021 (when he was let go from the General Manager role) he did not appear to dispute the Respondent’s version of events leading up to that. He acknowledged that there were weekly meetings regarding the pub opening, tasks Mr Treacy considered outstanding and differences of opinions between himself and the Respondent as to which customer markets they ought to target.

He does not dispute that the General Manager role was filled and that the pub later opened under the control of the Respondent. 

While I note there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the Complainant was dismissed at all, if I were to accept the Complaint’s case that he was dismissed from his job sometime in late July/early August 2021, I would also need to be satisfied that the dismissal was attributable to one or more of the reasons set out in Section 7, subsection 2 for his case to succeed.

On review of the evidence, I am unable to reach that conclusion. Specifically I note the overarching requirement that for redundancy to occur the reason must not be related to the employee himself but rather the role he occupies. It is clear that the parties fell out as to the direction and management of the new pub and that the Complainant was removed from the General Manager role which then went to a new hire. I see no entitlement to any payment under the Redundancy Payments Act arising in this scenario.

Time Limits

I note that there are potential arguments concerning the definition of date of dismissal under this act and the relevance of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 and that there were unclear and ongoing communications between the parties after the 29th of July as they remained family engaged in a family business.

Following the hearing I had much clearer evidence regarding the substantive issue, that is whether the Complainant was entitled to a redundancy payment, so I considered that issue first. Having concluded that the Complainant was not entitled to a redundancy payment the issue of time limits became moot. 

I find that the complaint is not well founded.