Fortune v Zed Candy Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)
Judgment Date10 Mar 2004
Judgment citation (vLex)[2004] 3 JIEC 1001

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Fortune v Zed Candy ltd.

Representation:

Claimant: Ms. Chris Rowland, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1

Respondent:

Ms Cathy Maguire BL instructed by Ms Mann Connolly, Eugene F. Collins Solicitors, Temple Chambers, 3 Burlington Road, Dublin 4

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Redundancy - Whether claimant unfairly selected for redundancy - Whether possibility of alternative work explored - Fair procedures - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001 - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2001 - Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD18/2003

RP19/2003

MN73/2003

CLAIMS OF:

Orla Fortune, 320 Gragadder, Kilcock, Co. Kildare

against

Zed Candy Limited, Church Skeet, Kilcock, Co. Kildare

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2001

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:

Ms. S. Berkeley B L

Members:

Mr. J. O'Neill

Mr D. Mahon

heard this claim at Maynooth on 7th October 2003

Facts The claimant was asked to go to the office of the company and was told that there was no longer a job for her and some of her colleagues. The claimant did not receive any prior notice. The method of selection was not explained. The possibility of alternative work was not explored.

Held by the Tribunal in finding that the dismissal was unfair and taking into account the redundancy payment awarding the claimant the sum of €1977.16 that there was a complete lack of explanation of the selection process for redundancy and a total lack of fair procedure. The claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy. The respondent did not consider alternative employment for the claimant.

Reporter's Note: Ms. Breda O'Reilly, Mr. Patrick Brady and Ms. Dympna Farrelly made similar claims against Zed Candy Ltd. and in each case the Tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Respondent's case:
1

The Tribunal heard evidence from the managing director of the respondent company. This witness left a company in 1998 and founded another company (company B) in 1998. On 26th July 2001, company B acquired another company (company C) and these amalgamated to form company R, which is the respondent company. The employees retained their continuity of service. When company C was acquired, the respondent company thought that they could make a success of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT