ADJ-00029167 - Workplace Relations Commission Eamon Colman Killilea v Galway Metal Company Limited

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 July 2023
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029167

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Eamon Colman Killilea	Galway Metal Company Limited

Representatives Terry Killilea Ronan Daly Jermyn Solicitors

Complaints:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00038968-001	30/07/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00038968-002	30/07/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/1/23 and 28/02/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Moya de Paor

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

The Complainant, Eamon Colman Killilea gave evidence under oath at the hearing. The Complainant was represented by Mrs.Terry Killilea, his wife who also gave evidence under oath on behalf of the Complainant. The Respondent was represented by David McCarroll of RDJ Solicitors, instructed by Patrick Walsh Managing Director of the Respondent who gave evidence in addition to Michelle Kelly Financial Controller, Finbarr Bride HR Manager and Mark Casserly General Manager. All witnesses were sworn in under oath.

The parties were advised that the hearing was held in public, and the names of the parties would be included in the decision which would be published on the WRC website.

A submission with supporting documentation was lodged on behalf of the Complainant prior to the hearing. The Respondent submitted a written submission with a booklet of appendices.

As part of my inquiry, I sought post hearing a copy of the Respondent’s appeal process. By way of email dated 23/3/23 the Respondent furnished a copy of the employee handbook, copied to the Complainant, which does not contain an appeal process.

The Complainant’s representative furnished material post hearing which I did not request and therefore did not consider for the purposes of this decision.

In light of the fact that the Complainant was a lay person who was represented by his wife Mrs. Killilea, I explained to the parties at the start of the hearing matters regarding the burden of proof under the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977 and regarding examination in chief and cross examination of witnesses. I outlined to the Complainant and Mrs. Killilea that any alleged inaccuracies in the minutes of meetings could be put to the relevant witness by way of cross examination.

All oral evidence, written submissions and supporting documentation presented have been taken into consideration.

Background:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 27/5/2010. The Complainant was employed as a truck driver. The Complainant worked with the Respondent on a full-time basis until 23/6/2020 when the Complainant was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy with six weeks’ notice. The Complainant received a weekly wage of €688.28 gross. On the 30/07/2020 the Complainant referred two complaints to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) pursuant to Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as amended, and Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 concerning a claim under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The complaints were heard at adjudication hearing over two days on the 17/1/2023 and 28/2/2023.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Preliminary Issue The Complainant included in his submission purported transcripts of various telephone conversations that occurred between the Complainant, the Complainant’s wife Mrs. Killilea, Mr. Bride HR Manager and Mr. Casserly General Manager in June 2020 as part of the Respondent’s redundancy consultation process. By way of letter dated 10/1/2023 the Respondent’s representative objected to the inclusion of the purported transcripts on the basis that the recordings were made without the consent of the parties being recorded which, it was submitted, amounts to a significant breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR, accordingly it was argued, it was illegal to include the transcripts. It was further submitted that minutes were taken and furnished to the Complainant, therefore, he had an opportunity to comment on the minutes. The Respondent also objected to the added references in the purported transcripts seeking to impute commentary as to the “tone” applied. It was further submitted by the Respondent’s representative that the Respondent objected to the inclusion of the purported transcripts on the basis that it was unnecessary, deceiving illegal and, therefore, they were inadmissible as evidence. These points were reemphasised at the hearing of the case. CA-00038968-001 complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977 It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that it has 50 years’ experience in the business of scrap metal recycling, de-pollution, the management of end-of-life vehicles, scrap metal collection and processing and other off site commercial services. The Respondent denies any allegation and/or insinuation that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. In response to the allegation set out in the complaint form regarding the use of an “unfair selection matrix” and that the” selection process was predetermined subjective unfair and unlawful “ the Respondent strongly denies the Complainant’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed. Genuine Redundancy Situation It is submitted by the Respondent that the Complainant was fairly dismissed arising from the genuine redundancy of...