Kavanagh v Gate Gourmet [EAT]



CASE NO. UD455/2011



Jonathan Kavanagh, Gragadder, Kilcock, Co Kildare
Gate Gourmet, South Apron, Dublin Airport, Co Dublin

Claimant: Mr Paul Henry, SIPTU, Membership Information, & Support Centre, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1

Respondent: Mr Tim O'Connell, IBEC, Confederation House, 84/86 Lower Baggot Sreet, Dublin 2


The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-


At the outset of the hearing the claims under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005 was withdrawn.

Respondent's Case:

The respondent is a provider of inflight catering. BM is the general manager. He gave evidence that the business is seasonal, cyclical, and is also reliant on the economic climate. BM said that the claimant worked in dispatch dealing with 15 airlines. He was one of three people who did the job plus a supervisor. In the fourth quarter of 2010 because of seasonal decline and economic constraints it was agreed that the operation would be restructured. The operations manager consulted with the Trade Union and a selection process that included quality and performance for the previous six months was drawn up. Each member of staff was written to on 27 th October 2010 advising them of restructuring.


A presentation took place on 2 nd November outlining the selection criteria and a one- to- one consultation was held with the claimant on 11 th November. The claimant was sent a letter dated 11 th November terminating his employment on the 12 th and advising him of his redundancyentitlements.


BM only became involved at the appeal stage. The claimant appealed the decision for selection as he felt there was bias and there was other more appropriate candidates, for example someone on a student visa. An appeal meeting was held on 23 rd November. BM talked to his supervisor and considered the six months selected as the ones where the best records had been kept. It was down to the quality of the work and the claimant made mistakes. He upheld the decision to make the claimant redundant.


Under cross examination BM said that he had carried out a full revision for the appeal. He interviewed staff and felt the assessments done by the operation manager were in order. Temporary lay-off or any other options were not considered. The claimant...

To continue reading