Meade v P.J. Hegarty & Sons Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 May 1999
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1999] 5 JIEC 2502
• Date: 25 May 1999
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

Meade v P.J. Hegarty & Sons Ltd

Abstract:

Unfair Dismissal - Redundancy - Whether genuine redundancy situation - Whether other work available

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM OF: UD47/99

Claim of:

Brian Meade, 164 Silversprings Lawn, Tivoli, Cork

against

P.C. Hegarty & Sons Ltd, Carrolls Quay, Cork

Under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 1995

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: Ms. K.T. O'Mahony BL.

Members: Mr. P. Barrington, Ms M. Burke

heard this claim at Cork on 27th April 1999

Claimant worked as a carpenter with the respondent company. He was let go on the basis that there had been a falling off in the demand for carpenters. The Tribunal was not satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation had arisen and awarded the claimant £1,050.

1 The determination of the Tribunal was as follows: The claimant worked as a carpenter on various sites from May 1997 to October 1998.

The Case for the Respondent:

2 The Tribunal was told that the demand for carpenters had fallen in October, 1998. The job the claimant had been working on finished up at about that time. It was the respondent' s evidence that another carpenter finished up a week later and that while 20 carpenters had been employed in May, 1998 there are only 16 employed at present. The personnel officer said in evidence that he would have had to let someone who was working on another site go in order to keep the claimant on. With regard to the issue of extra pay for the night shift the respondent's position was that, in the first instance, volunteers were sought for the night shift and secondly, that a local arrangement existed whereby the men were let go an hour early in the morning in lieu of extra pay. It is the respondent' s case that this did not suit the claimant and he opted to go back on the day shift,

3 During cross-examination it was out to the personnel officer Mr Brian Hurley, that another carpenter had been taken on since the claimant's employment had ended, but the personnel officer's response was that the new carpenter was a carpenter with different skills, a first and second fitter-

4 Mr Gillen, the site manager. said in evidence that his action of writing the claimant's wages on the wall was not intended to be offensive.

The Case for the Claimant:

5 The Tribunal was told that the manner in which the claimant's enquiry, regarding extra money for the night shift. was dealt. with,. was totally...