Case Number: UDD2151. Labour Court

• Judgment Date: 01 August 2021
• Docket Number: UDD2151
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION; UD/20/88; ADJ- 00018534 CA-00023903 -001 DETERMINATION NO. UDD2151 ; SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015 ; PARTIES : TANNERON LIMITED; (REPRESENTED BY ALAN LEDWITH, B.L., INSTRUCTED BY, RONAN, DALY, JERMYN, SOLICITORS); - AND -; GERARD CONOLIN; (REPRESENTED BY TIERNAN LOWEY, B.L., INSTRUCTED BY, MICHAEL HOULIHAN AND PARTNERS, SOLICITORS); DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Treacy ; SUBJECT : 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No ADJ-00018534; BACKGROUND : 2. The Employee appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 11 May 2020 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 June 2021. The following is the Determination of the Court.; DETERMINATION : BACKGROUND: This is an appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, ‘the Acts’. Mr. Conolin, ‘the Complainant’, was employed by Tanneron Ltd., ‘the Respondent’, as a Principal Consultant offering consultancy to Pharma and Biotech companies on quality control, from January 2008 to July 2018. The Respondent contends that the Complainant was made redundant. The Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant made a complaint under the Acts to the Workplace Relations Commission, ‘WRC’. The Adjudication Officer, ‘AO’, found that there was a genuine redundancy and that the Complainant had not been unfairly dismissed. The Complainant appealed to this Court. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS: The company had cumulative losses from June to December 2017 in the region of €442,000, from January to April 2018 of €217,000 and cumulative losses to end November 2018 of €733,000. There were various measures taken to deal with the situation including non-payment of bonuses, reduction in telephone costs, cancellation of an IT service contract, reduction of office space through closure of Galway office and closure of the Respondent’s office in India. However, 93% of the costs of the business are employment costs. The Respondent was kept afloat by a series of significant cash injections from its France based parent company, EFESO. Survivability was paramount and there was no alternative but to have redundancies. Three consultancy positions had to be...