Martin Forde v Chanelle Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Ltd [Employment Appeals Tribunal]

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 22 February 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] 2 JIEC 2202
• Date: 22 February 2011
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Representation:

Claimant(s): Ms Catherine Connolly BL, instructed by Ms. Aine Feeney Feeney Solicitors, 1st Floor, Lismoyle House, Merchants Road, Galway

Respondent(s): Mr Shane McSweeney, Solicitor, Lismoyle House, Merchants Road, Galway

Abstract:

Employment law - Unfair dismissal - Selection for redundancy - Health and Safety concerns - Use of skill set matrix - Whether selection process for redundancy was fair - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005 - Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.

CLAIM(S) OF:	CASE NO.
Martin Forde Ballingarry, Kilchreest, Loughrea, Co Galway - claimant	UD1818/2009 MN1733/2009

against

Chanelle Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Limited Loughrea, Co Galway - respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:	Mr P Hurley
Members:	Mr T Gill
	Ms H Murphy

heard this claim at Loughrea on 12th November 2010, 21st February 2011 and 22nd February 2011

Facts The claimant had been employed in the area of quality assurance for the respondent. The claimant was informed that he was to be made redundant. The claimant was devastated by this news. It was contended that the skill set analysis carried out on him had not awarded him marks in certain categories that he was entitled to. It was the claimant's case that he was perceived as a problem employee because of the health and safety issues that he had raised. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that a costs saving programme was introduced. The claimant's selection for redundancy was based purely on the skill set matrix. The area where the claimant had worked had been restructured.

Held by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim. The determining factor had been was the claimant's shorter service in comparison to a colleague. The issues raised by the claimant relating to health and safety were not a factor in his dismissal. The claimant had not been unfairly selected for redundancy and was not unfairly dismissed.

Reporter: R.F.

1 At the outset of the hearing the respondent's representative stated that the minimum notice issue had been resolved. The claimant had only been paid one-week's pay in error. The claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005 was withdrawn.

2 Respondent's Case:

3 The respondent company contended that the claimant was dismissed by way of redundancy and that the selection process was fair. The respondent company produces pharmaceutical products. The managing director (MB) gave evidence that in 2008 to 2009 the company was losing its competitiveness on the UK market and had to reduce costs. A cost saving programme was introduced. The company looked to reduce supplier costs, but also had to reduce wage costs.

4 The managing director asked all the company managers to assess their own areas and identify the skill sets of the employees therein. In 2009 44 employees were made redundant leaving 175 remaining. The managing director had no difficulty with the claimant's ability to carry out his job. During cross-examination the managing director agreed that the claimant was a superb employee. He could not recall selecting him to carry out an assignment with another employee on the basis that they were his two best men. He was aware that the claimant had left the company and had returned. He was not aware that he had been headhunted.

5 The company managers produced a matrix of skill sets. The managing director saw it after its completion. (CC) was...