Edward Byrne v Trackline Crane Hire Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 May 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 5 JIEC 0201
• Date: 02 May 2003
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Edward Byrne v Trackline Crane Hire Ltd

Representation:

Claimant(s):

Mr. Marcus Dowling BL, instructed by Ms. Una Murphy, Solicitor E.P. Daly & Co,

Solicitors, 23/24 Lower Dorset Street, Dublin 1

Respondent(s):

Mr. Eddie Keenan, Construction Industry Federation, Construction House, Canal Road, Rathmines, Dublin 6

Abstract:

Employment law - EAT - Downturn in business - Redundancy - Whether genuine case - Selection basis - Whether unfairly chosen - Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2001 - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 - 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD1099/2002

RP38212002

CLAIM(S) OF:

Edward Byrne, 200 Millbrook Avenue, Donaghmede, Dublin 13

against

Trackline Crane Hire Limited, 12 Upper Ballymount Road, Tallaght, Dublin 24

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2001

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Mrs. M. Quinlan

Members:

Mr. M. Dunne

Mr J. Mc Donnell

heard this claim at Dublin on 23rd April 2003

Facts The claimant worked as a crane driver and worked on a variety of cranes. He was aware that a crane that he was mostly driving was sold but he claimed that he was surprised when he was informed of his redundancy. The respondent said it was the practice of the business that when a crane was sold that the driver was made redundant. When the business hit a downturn the respondent sold the claimant's crane and made him redundant.

Held The Tribunal was satisfied that a genuine case of redundancy existed as the company was losing money. The practice of “first in last out” did not apply. Once the claimant's crane was sold his position no longer existed.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Respondent's Case

1 The managing director, in evidence told the Tribunal he owned a crane hire business. He had a broad spectrum of clients mainly in the building industry and he had ten cranes in total. The cranes varied in size from ten tonnes to one hundred and twenty tonnes. It was the policy that when a driver was employed he was assigned to a particular crane. When the claimant commenced employment he drove an eighteen tonne crane. When the crane was made redundant it followed that the employee was made redundant. The twenty-five tonne cranes were not profitable for the company and five of them had to be sold. The claimant was made redundant as he was driving a...