Butler v St Munchins Community Development Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2005
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2005] 11 JIEC 1401
• Date: 14 November 2005
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Butler v St Munchins Community Development Company Limited

Abstract:

Employment law - EAT - Unfair dismissal - Redundancy - Time limit within which to bring claim - Whether exceptional circumstances existed - Fair selection for redundancy - Whether claimant fairly selected for redundancy - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM(S) OF:	CASE NO.
Christine Butler, 8 Creagh Avenue, Kileely, Limerick	UD1126/2004

against

St. Munchins Community Development Company Limited,

Enterprise Centre, Kileely Road, Limerick

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Mr. J. Sheedy
Members:	Mr. M. Forde
	Dr. A. Chine

heard this claim in Limerick on 29 July 2005

Facts The claimant commenced employment in February. A redundancy situation arose and the respondent offered statutory redundancy to the claimant. The respondent stated that it had not applied LIFO and that there had been no criteria per se but that the respondent looked to see what least disrupted the work.

Held by the Tribunal in awarding the claimant Eur1000 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts in addition to any payment already made to the claimant by the respondent that the claimant was not fairly selected for redundancy.

Preliminary issue The claim was not made within six months of the termination of the claimant's employment. The claimant submitted that the case should be heard because the claimant had met with a then trade union official within four weeks of her dismissal and had duly completed and signed a claim form entrusting the posting of same. After unsuccessful enquiries as to the status of her claim, she completed a new form and referred the claim herself. The Tribunal decided that there were exceptional circumstances which prevented the claim being made in the first six months and decided it should hear the case.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

1 The claim was not made within six months of the termination of the claimant's employment. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that there had not been exceptional circumstances which prevented the lodging of the claim such as would satisfy the Tribunal that the claim could be made within a further six months.

2 It was submitted on behalf of the claimant that it was in the interest of natural justice that the case be heard as the claimant had met a then trade union official (hereafter referred to as X) within four weeks of her dismissal and had duly completed and signed the appropriate claim form entrusting to X the posting of same. After several unsuccessful enquiries as to the status of her case, the claimant ultimately engaged a solicitor to write to her...