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

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 28 April 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] 4 JIEC 2801
• Date: 28 April 2011
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

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.

CLAIM OF:	CASE NO.
Derek O'Neill, Pluckerstown, Kilmeague, Naas, Co. Kildare - claimant	UD154/10 RP218/10

Against

G E Grainger Enterprises Limited, Newtown, Eadestown, Naas, Co Kildare - respondent

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Ms P. McGrath BL
Members:	Mr M. Noone
	Ms. E. Brezina

heard this claim at Naas on 28th April 2011.

Facts The claimant had been employed as a driver for the respondent and had been employed for nine years. The claimant was informed that he was to be made redundant as he was the longest serving member of staff and that the money was there to pay him redundancy. The claimant had not been shown any skill matrix. It was the claimant�€�s case that he had not used shutes that had been fitted to a newer vehicle and had refused to use them. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that it had been decided to re-structure the company. A colleague of the claimant scored higher in the skills matrix. The claimant had been informed of the redundancy and was subsequently paid his redundancy sum.

Held by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim. When the time came to select an employee for redundancy, the claimant did not have all the skills as his colleague. The claimant had not been unfairly selected for redundancy.

Reporter: R.F.

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2 At the outset of the hearing the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 was withdrawn.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