Jenkins v ESAT Telecommunications

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 07 September 2004
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2004] 9 JIEC 0702
• Date: 07 September 2004
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

EAT: Jenkins v ESAT Telecommunications

Representation:

Claimant(s):

Mr. Christopher Hudson, Communications Workers' Union, 575

North Circular Road, Dublin 1

Respondent(s):

Mr Oisin Quinn B.L. instructed by,

Matheson Ormsby Prentice, Solicitors, 30 Herbert Street,

Dublin 2

Abstract:

EAT - Employment law - Redundancy - Merging companies - Whether redundancy contrived by respondent - Dismissal or redundancy - Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 - 2001

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD368/2003

CLAIM(S) OF:

Tarah Jenkins, 67 The Boulevard, Frenchpark,

Tyrellstown, Dublin 15

against

Esat Telecommunications Ltd, Grand Canal Plaza, Dublin 2

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2001

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Mr. P. O' Leary B L
Members:	Mr G. Mc Auliffe
	Mr C. Ryan

heard this claim at Dublin on 2nd October 2003

and 7th January 2004

Facts Under a merger of two companies the claimant lost her job as project manager. Her job was to be merged with the position of concert service delivery manager. She was offered a lower position but she would have lost Eur10,000 a year. The claimant, shocked at this development took sick leave. The respondent said that they sought and obtained 120 voluntary redundancies. When they merged the claimant's job with another position, they held an open competition to fill the position. After the competition knowing the claimant was unsuccessful they offered the claimant a different position or redundancy.

Held by the tribunal that the redundancy was a contrived redundancy and that the job competition process was invoked as a defence for their decision. They awarded Eur16,000.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows: -

Respondent's case:

1 The Tribunal heard evidence from the respondent company's operations and development manager. He told the Tribunal that the claimant began working in the company in 1999. The claimant's position in the company was “OLO project manager” and in 2002 she reported to the witness. In early 2002 it was decided to merge two divisions of the company. One of the divisions were suffering severe losses and the merger was to reduce costs. As a result of the merger 300 employees were to be made redundant. The witness reported to the customer services director who was in charge of the merged entity. In March 2002 there was a letter...