Foran v Las Security Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 24 August 2016
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2016] 8 JIEC 2403
• Docket Number: TU63/2015,RP48/2015
• Date: 24 August 2016

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

TU63/2015

RP48/2015

Parties to the claims:

Niall Foran

employee

and

Las Security Limited T/A Safezone Security Services

employer

Representation:

Employee: Meath Citizens Information Service, Floor 2, 1 Canon Row, Navan, Co. Meath

Employer: A director of the company

under

PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES ON TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS REGULATIONS 2003

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Ms. M. Levey B.L.

Members: Mr. J. O'Neill

Mr. M. O'Reilly

heard this appeal at Dublin on 24th August 2016

Background:

1 These claims came before the Tribunal by way of a direct claim by the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 and an appeal by the employer against a Rights Commissioner Decision (reference: r-153036, 153034-tu-14/JT) under the E.C. (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations.

Summary:

2 A director of the respondent company gave evidence that the company lost the contract of providing security services to a shopping centre. The respondent company believed that the employees based at the shopping centre would transfer to the new company that had won the contract. The respondent company believed that a transfer of undertakings automatically applied in the circumstances. To that end the employee in this case was instructed to make contact with the new company. The respondent company also sent information to the new company concerning the employees but the new company disputed that a transfer of undertakings had occurred. The respondent company was dissatisfied with both the Rights Commissioner's Decision and the quantum awarded to the employee.

3 There was a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the new company employed another employee from the respondent company. The director maintained it had but he was unaware if the employee's continuity of service was preserved. The employee in this case refuted that his colleague worked for the new company.

4 It was the employee's evidence that when he contacted the new company he was informed that there was no position for him. The new company subsequently followed up in writing stating that there was no transfer of undertaking between the two companies.

Determination:

5 The Tribunal is satisfied...