Doherty v CK Broadcasting Ltd [EAT]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 14 December 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] 12 JIEC 1401
• Docket Number: UD447/2010,WT188/2010
• Date: 14 December 2011

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO. UD447/2010

WT188/2010

CLAIMS OF:

Stephen Doherty 80 Congress Place, Waterford City, Co Waterford

Claimant

and

C K Broadcasting Limited Leggis Rath Business Park, Carlow Road, Co Kilkenny

Respondent

Representation:

Claimant: Fanning & Kelly, Solicitors, 2 Hatch Lane, Hatch Street, Dublin 2

Respondent: Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Limited, Unit 3, Ground Floor, Block S, East Point Business Park, Dublin 3

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997

I certify that the Tribunal (Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Ms D. Donovan B.L.

Members: Mr J. Hennessy

Mr F. Dorgan

heard this claim at Kilkenny on 27th September 2011 and 14th December 2011

Background:

1 The respondent is a radio station and the claimant was the head of production.

Respondent's case:

2 The Tribunal heard evidence from the chief executive of the respondent company. He

3 In 2009 the company was in financial difficulties. Staff had left in 2007 and 2008 and they were not replaced. In 2009 a sales person left and they did not replace the person. An administrative position was redundant in 2009. The company losses were bad in 2009. He was away in June 2009 and when he returned there was zero sales activity. The company loss was in the order of one million euros. There was a state of emergency in the business and they had to consider a range of measures to continue the viability of the company.

4 The company reduced salaries and sought to reduce head count. Regarding the wage cuts the company was aware that they had to be implemented by consent of the employees and to do so equitably. The cuts were implemented.

5 In July 2009 he called a staff meeting and told the employees that the company was in a serious situation and they would have to take drastic measures. He told the employees that he would work for a period without taking a salary. He did this for a period.

6 The company consulted advisors regarding reducing head count and were advised to engage in a consultation process. The rationale for selecting the claimant was because of his function in sales/ servicing the service department. The work greatly decreased. It appeared to him to re-assign those (his) responsibilities and to make the position redundant and to outsource it. He had a meeting with the claimant to say that the situation might impact on his position.

7 Correspondence on the matter was...