EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Georgina Farmer, RP19/2013
Noonan Services Group Limited,
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr J. O'Connor
Members: Mr J. Hennessy
Mr J. Flavin
heard this appeal at Killarney on 20th May 2014
Appellant: Mr Martin Corbett, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Eden Quay, Dublin 1
Respondent : Mr John Barry, Management Support Services (Ireland) Limited,
The Courtyard, Hill Street, Dublin 1
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:
The appellant commenced employment on 24 October 2005 as a full time security officer with a different employer and was transferred to the respondent subsequent to that date. Following the birth of her child her employment and working hours changed to a part-time status. In June 2010 she started security duties at a local community nursing unit. By the end of March 2011 the appellant was informed she would to be laid off shortly as that unit was closing. That notice of lay-off told her that it contained her notice as required by legislation. In April the appellant presented a note dated September 2010 from a medical practitioner to state she was not in a position to work night shifts.
Later that month the appellant received another letter from the respondent regarding her lay off and asking for further details concerning her inability to undertake night work. In February 2012 the appellant sought her attendance at a meeting to discuss her availability for work. She did not attend that meeting. The witness told the Tribunal that she was leaving the matter of lay off, night shifts and all related matters in the hands of a named trade union official. In August 2012 the appellant submitted a half completed RP50 form to the respondent. In response she received a note from her employer. She did not reply and continued to seek a declaration of her redundancy.
An operations’ manager described the appellant as a good employee who up to June 2010 was available to work day and night shifts. Her request that month that she only work on days was reflected in the respondent’s printout as from 12 June onwards the records showed her shifts did not include night time work. When security work ceased on the community nursing centre the appellant then presented him with a note from a doctor regarding her work shifts. That note was forwarded to the human resource section. At that time there was no availability on exclusive day shifts. The appellant remained in a lay off position. During this process this witness received no communication on behalf of the appellant.
The regional security manager told the Tribunal that the purpose of his proposed meeting with appellant in February 2012 was to discuss work options with her. However, she did not appear for that meeting. This witness met the appellant’s representative on several occasions during this process but her case was not mentioned during those meetings
Having heard and considered the adduced evidence and submitted documentation the Tribunal finds that the cessation of the appellant’s employment with the respondent was not as a result of a redundancy. The respondent erred in referring to the Minimum Notice Acts when laying the appellant off in April 2011. However, the appellant opted on a number of occasions including in September 2012 not to respond directly to the respondent’s offers to discuss possible work options subsequent to that lay-off. When she submitted a RP50 form in lieu of an RP9 the respondent replied asking her to contact the company regarding her availably for work.
The appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 falls
The Tribunal notes that the respondent stated that there is possible work currently available for the appellant and that the appellant indicated a willingness to undertake such work.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal