Case Number: ADJ-00025269. Workplace Relations Commission.

• Docket Number: ADJ-00025269
• Hearing Date: 03 September 2020
• Date: 01 October 2020
• Year: 2020
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025269

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Repair Processor	An aircraft repair company

Representatives Self Represented Sinead Mullins IBEC

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00032019-001	01/11/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/09/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background:

The Complainant was made redundant and claimed that his selection for redundancy was unfair and his dismissal was therefore unfair.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant relied heavily on his claim form as his submission at the Hearing and made no further written submission. He made limited further verbal submissions. The Complainant was employed from February 18th 2018 to October 4th 2019. On November 1st2019 he submitted a claim to the WRC for unfair dismissal following his redundancy. The Complainant worked as part of a Service Team. He commenced employment on a 11 month temporary contract which expired on January 18th 2019. Over 80 employees were hired after the Complainant was hired. The Complainant was one of three Repair Processors to receive training on a specific robotic blaster, an important new technology introduced into the plant. On September 29th 2019, the Complainant was informed by his Supervisor that he was being let go with immediate effect and his notice would be paid. His employment was terminated on October 4th 2019, by letter received on September 30th 2019 stating downsizing as the reason for his termination. This letter stated his contract was being terminated although his contract had expired since January 2019, nine months previously. The Complainant accepted that there was a reduction in his areas work orders in the weeks previous to his dismissal and one team in the company were put on short time. The Complainant advised the Services Team, which he was part of, was a job shop and had not been put on short time. The Complainant worked overtime in the previous four weeks to his dismissal and the Services Team worked overtime on each Saturday in the weeks prior to his dismissal and this continued after his dismissal. The Complainant stated two employees had joined the Services Team from other parts of the Plant and who had approximately 10 to 12 months less service than the Complainant and these were brought in to fulfil a long term need in the Services area. Both were still in the area when the Complainant was dismissed. The Complainant maintained he was a full time employee and questioned why he was not allowed take one of the roles undertaken by the two employees with less service. The Complainant maintained there were about 40 staff with less service than the Complainant still employed when he was dismissed. The Complainant had requested additional training by email and he felt this was used against him in the decision to terminate his employment. The Complainant was not a member of the Trade Union at the Company.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent is a leading independent provider of maintenance, repair, overhaul and modification services for civil aircraft and engines. The company has been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. Year to date, they have reduced their head count by 24 people and on 6 August 2020 they commenced a collective redundancy process which is expected to result in up to a further 52 redundancies, with the introduction of other cost saving measures and changes to work practices. The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 18 February 2018, initially employed on an 11-month fixed-term contract under the title of Repair Processor, working within the Services Team. The Complainant’s contract was due to expire on 18 January 2019 and his contract was extended to 18 December 2019. The Respondent experienced a downturn in business and as a result of the subsequent downsizing, the Complainant was made redundant and his employment ended on 04 October 2018, some 10 weeks before the natural expiry of the contract was due to end. The Respondent rejects the assertions made by the Complainant in his submission regarding his contract extension. The Complainant’s contract was due to expire on 18 January 2019. On 4 January 2019, the HR Manager, emailed the Complainant’s Supervisor advising that the Complainant’s contract was due to expire and also copied her colleague in HR, who was responsible for the administration of both contracts and contract extensions. On 15 January 2019, Operational Supervision asked for ‘another fixed term contract here as per our previous discussions’, referring to the renewal of the Complainant’s contract. Operational Management responded within 2 hours stating that they had signed off on the extension earlier that morning. The Complainant was aware his contract was being extended. The Complainant had been advised by a Supervisor that he was being issued with a contract extension and not being made permanent. During the conversation with the Supervisor, the Complainant raised the issue of another employee being made permanent previously and why he was not being made permanent. Therefore, the Complainant was fully aware that he was not being made permanent. The HR Administrator, then prepared the standard contract extension letter. There were a number of other contracts extended in December and January. The other staff members received their letters. The Complainant is again incorrect in his submission when he states that he was the only one...