EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Iwona Idec, – appellant RP597/2013
Against
Greenberry Limited - respondent
Under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms D. Donovan B.L.
Members: Mr J. Horan
Mr A. Butler
heard this appeal at Carlow on 23rd January 2014
Representation:
Appellant(s) : Mr. Justin Cody, James Cody & Sons, Solicitors, Centaur Street, Co Carlow
Respondent(s) : Insight HR, 23 Danville Business Park, Ring Road, Kilkenny
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Evidence
The appellant commenced employment in September 2009 on a full-time basis. Her role involved ticket checking on the respondent’s coaches. Her place of work was in Carlow town. On the 8 March 2012 she was called to a meeting in Urlingford and was informed by the respondent that the Carlow office was closing due to trading conditions and a significant reduction in business. Furthermore the appellant was informed that her working week was being reduced to three days per week.
The Carlow office closed on the 9 March 2012 but this was disputed by the respondent who claimed the office remained open until the end of March. The appellant was requested to attend either at the respondent’s office in Waterford which was around 80 km from the Carlow office or Urlingford which was located 60 km from the Carlow office.
The respondent submitted that the reduction in hours was only intended to be temporary and that the appellant’s role had not changed as she was to continue checking tickets for three days per week without having to attend at the Waterford or Urlingford offices.
The appellant continued to work at the reduced hours up to July 2012 at which point she sought her redundancy.
Determination:
Having considered the evidence of the parties at the hearing the Tribunal finds that the respondent needed to close down his Carlow office as a result of a downturn in its business. The respondent who wanted to avoid making staff redundant offered the appellant alternative employment but for lesser hours and which required her to be away from Carlow.
The appellant’s contract of employment does provide that the appellant may be required to transfer to another place of work. However, the contract further provides in that eventuality the appellant would be consulted and any reasonable objections to any proposed change of location would be considered. The Tribunal finds that the appellant’s objections to the change of location were reasonable.
Regarding the reduction of hours the Tribunal finds that the appellant temporarily accepted a reduction in her hours of work and such reduction was not less than half her normal working hours. This acceptance being for a period not exceeding 52 weeks is not to be taken as an acceptance by the appellant of an offer of suitable employment. The Tribunal considered the submission of the respondent that because the reduction in hours worked was not less than half the normal weekly working hours and was of a temporary nature a redundancy situation did not arise. The Tribunal finds that this provision applies to short time. The appellant was not put on short time but was offered other work and in any event the respondent failed to give the appellant written notice that the reduction in hours was of a temporary nature.
The Tribunal accepts that the respondent did not pay the statutory lump sum to the appellant because the respondent genuinely and reasonably believed a redundancy situation had not arisen. The Tribunal acknowledges the efforts of the respondent in seeking to avoid making the appellant redundant.
For the foregoing reasons the Tribunal finds that the appellant was made redundant and that the offer of alternative employment was not a suitable offer. Accordingly, the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007succeeds and the appellant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum based on the following criteria:-
Date of Birth:
Date of Commencement: 01 September 2005
Date of Termination: 23 July 2012
Gross Weekly Pay: €466.30
This award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)