Derek O'Neill v G E Grainger Enterprises Ltd [Employment Appeals Tribunal]

 
FREE EXCERPT

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Representation:

Claimant: Mr. John Kane, SIPTU, 4 Church Street, St. John�€�s Square, Limerick

Respondent: Mr. James Scanlon, William Fry, Solicitors, Fitzwilton House, Wilton Place, Dublin 2

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Selection for redundancy - Payment of redundancy - Use of skill set matrix - Whether selection process for redundancy was fair - Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

1

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

2

At the outset of the hearing the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 was withdrawn.

3

Respondent�€�s Case:

4

The respondent is a family run business and KG is the Managing Director. Work was plentiful in 2006 and 2007 but in 2009 things started to slow down. The company was financially struggling. The company owned five trucks, 2 drivers worked in the concrete section, 2 in the tipping section, one was a floater and KG also worked as a driver.

5

KG discussed his concerns with his Accountant. He was advised to re-organise and re-structure the company. He had no option but to make one person redundant.

6

He sought advice and looked at the different areas within the company. He could step back into the tipper section so he looked at that area. Both the claimant and BD worked in this area. He devised a matrix.

7

BD had commenced working for another area of the business in 1998 and had more service than the claimant. He also had been doing shute work while the claimant refused to do this work. The claimant had refused to do night work also. BD�€�s scoring in the matrix was much higher and it was decided that BD would remain in employment.

8

KG met the claimant on 14 July 2009 and told him that he was proposing to make his position redundant and gave him thirty days notice of the termination of his employment. KG agreed to meet the claimant again and met him on 4th August 2009 in his house. The claimant had no issues.

9

He informed him of his redundancy payment figure. KG met the claimant again on 14th August 2009 and paid him his holiday pay but explained that due to financial constraints he could not pay him his redundancy payment. However, the claimant signed the RP50 form and KG said it would take some time to have it processed and...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL