Hughes v McHale Engineering Ltd [EAT]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 31 January 2012
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2012] 1 JIEC 3101
• Docket Number: UD1025/2010,MN1000/2010
• Date: 31 January 2012
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD1025/2010

MN1000/2010

CLAIMS OF:

Noel Hughes, Dringeen, Cong, Co Mayo

and

Mchale Engineering Limited, Kilmaine, Co Mayo

Representation:

Claimant: The claimant in person

Respondent: Mr. John Barry, Management Support Services (Ireland) Limited, The Courtyard, Hill Street, Dublin 1

Under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005 UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal (Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Mr M. Gilvarry

Members: Mr. D. Morrison

Mr M. McGarry

heard this claim at Castlebar on 17th October 2011 and 31st January 2012

Respondent's case

1 The respondent is an engineering company engaged in the manufacturing of machine parts and components. The claimant was employed as a spray painter from 6 ^th March 2001 to 8 ^th February 2010.

2 There was a severe downturn in business from July 2009 to February 2010 and the respondent had to rationalise the business and reduced the staff by one third. However in March 2010 there was an improvement and some staff were taken on and one of these was assigned to the job that the claimant previously did. This remained steady until September 2010 when more staff were taken on and by 2011 the numbers employed were back to the 2009 level.

3 The criteria used in selecting the claimant for redundancy was that he was not flexible with regard to working arrangements. Evidence was given that the claimant had refused to work over-time on a number of occasions and could be awkward and reluctant about doing work that he deemed not to be proper to a spray painter. The claimant had been issued with a warning in respect of not working over-time and was told to "buck up his ideas".

Claimant's case

4 The claimant stated that he had been victimised by his supervisor in an effort to get rid. When he was issued with a warning in relation to not working over-time, the claimant made a complaint in relation to this victimisation. However, no action was taken in respect of his complaint and instead, the manager simply avoided him and he was left alone.

5 The claimant argued that he had greater skills and was more senior than a number of other employees who were kept on after he was made redundant and therefore he was unfairly selected for redundancy.

6 Since becoming unemployed the claimant has applied for two jobs in tyre retail outlets in his locality and completed a six month training course with Fás...