The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) awards 50,000 euro for the unfair selection for redundancy of environmental manager.
Claimant worked her way up in Oxigen Environmental-was told her role would cease-notified of redundant-company had decided a week earlier that her role would cease-claimant said she was unfairly dismissed and sought reinstatement-alternatively, she claimed that she was unfairly selected for redundancy-respondent claimed her redundancy was part of a company restructuring-claimant informed of potential redundancy on 29th April, 2010-redundancy was confirmed on 26th May, 2010-came into effect on 26th June, 2010-no appeal from claimant-Tribunal found that claimant was not treated fairly or reasonably-selection criteria must be objectively applied in a fair manner-no hard and fast rules for criteria-criteria will come under scrutiny if employee claims unfairly selected-no agreed procedure for redundancy in this case-therefore employer must act fairly and reasonably-EAT held that there was no serious or worthwhile consultation with the claimant-decision to make the position redundant was made before consultation with claimant-no substantial consideration given to alternatives to redundancy-no worthwhile discussion in relation to the criteria for selecting the claimant-claimant’s suitability for other roles should have been considered-Tribunal found claimant was unfairly dismissed by virtue of her unfair selection for redundancy-awarded 50,000 euro for unfair dismissal in addition to redundancy payment of 10,014 already paid to the claimant under Redundancy Payments acts 1967-2007.
Decision published: 27th June, 2013
Read the full decision here
A warehouse operative working in Waterford for kitchen seller is awarded €8,000 for ‘completely deficient procedures’ in implementing redundancy.
Respondent company sells kitchens throughout the country-claimant a warehouse operative in Waterford branch-poor sales in Waterford branch-claimant’s position selected for redundancy-company invited applications for voluntary redundancy or career break-claimant offered position in Limerick-declined for ‘family reasons’-claimant signed RP50 and accepted redundancy cheque-advised of right to appeal-General Manager claimed company policy re redundancy was adhered to-no need to compile a redundancy matrix as warehouse was closing fully-another employee retained to complete an order-no evidence of financial figures for Waterford branch-claimant received verbal warning for an error he made-claimant claimed that warehouse did not close immediately-employees still working there-he could have been trained for alternative positions-Tribunal accepted that company was suffering losses-however, procedures for dismissal were ‘completely deficient’-awarded €8,000 compensation under Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007-redundancy sum already paid to be offset against the €8,000.
Date of decision: 29th May, 2013
Read full decision here
The claimant, an administrative training and development co-ordinator, fails in her claim for unfair dismissal as a result of her redundancy.
Employer, large multi-national engineering company-claimant responsible for administrative training and development co-ordinator role lending support to apprentice electricians employed by the company-organised internal executive courses in leadership management and skills enhancement-downturn in construction industry-large number of redundancies-claimant made redundant-company then advertised for 2 corporate human resource positions-company claimed claimant did not have necessary experience or requirements-paid her statutory redundancy and one month’s notice-also offered €10,000 ex-gratia payment-claimant declined to accept-claimant got massive shock at meeting advising she was to be made redundant-became emotional and did not speak at meeting-not allowed to retrain or accept another role-needed time to think about €10,000 offer-required to sign a waiver form-EAT had enormous sympathy for claimant-excellent worker-however, genuine company restructuring-genuine redundancy-no unfair selection for redundancy-respectful response by company to cross examination during EAT hearing-claimant traumatised by redundancy-may have affected her decision to accept ex gratia payment-claim under unfair dismissals acts fails-received her statutory redundancy entitlement-received her notice of termination-minimum notice and terms of employment acts claim fails also.
For claimant: Elaine Power BL, instructed by McMahon English solicitors
For respondent: Brian Gageby BL, instructed by William Fry solicitors
Decision published: 12th April, 2013
Read Full EAT decision here
A construction worker who claimed he was unfairly selected for redundancy and/or it was not a genuine redundancy situation, fails in his claim for unfair dismissal.
Long service since 1998-placed on 3 day week-told of redundancy-no appeal-requested copy of selection process-never received it-redundancy process should be last in first out-accepted sum of €5,000 plus statutory redundancy-earned €80,000 per year-claimant’s case that he was not redundant-or unfairly selected for redundancy-EAT finds redundancy fair-for unfair selection to apply there must be workers in similar employment-no recognised procedure with trade union in this case-last in, first out did not apply according to employer-no finding of unfair selection-genuine redundancy under Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 as amended-unfair dismissal claim fails.
For claimant: Pauline Codd BL and Clare Bruton instructed by Aileen Fleming, Daniel Spring & Co. Solicitors
For respondent: Conor O’Connell, Construction Indurstry Federation, Cork
Decision published: 15th November, 2012
Read full EAT determination here