EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Alison Tuohy UD865/2013
Tramore Development Trust Limited
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms D. Donovan B.L.
Members: Mr. J. Browne
Ms S. Kelly
heard this claim at Waterford on 24th November 2014
Claimant: Mr. Jim Hally, James J Hally, Solicitor,
Eldon Main Street, Tramore, Co Waterford
Respondent: No representation
The Tribunal heard evidence from Ms MK for the respondent and from the claimant. The claimant worked as a full time childcare manageress for the respondent. The respondent is a crèche / childcare service provider which is funded by public funds and or funds are allotted in part or to the parents. A board of directors sit to manage the respondent. The respondent position was that the claimant was let go because of lack of funding. The respondent did advertise a position, which entailed lesser hours that the claimant had worked, after the claimant was dismissed but they did not offer this position to the claimant; nobody was taken on for the position. There were six staff employed by the respondent. However after the claimant was dismissed the crèche closed.
The witness explained the lead-up to the claimant and others being let-go. She explained that because of lack of funding it was what the respondent had to do. However the witness stated that the claimant was involved in constant talks with the respondent regarding the predicament of the respondent.
The claimant explained that she was called to a meeting on 02nd April 2013 and she was told by that she was being made redundant. She told the Tribunal that it was not suggested to her that she reduce her hours but simply that she was being made redundant.
Having considered the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal finds as follows:-
That the respondent was experiencing financial difficulties and needed to effect cost saving measures one of which was to make the claimant redundant and which redundancy was a genuine redundancy.
The Tribunal further finds that the respondent had for about five months previously through discussions with staff sought ideas on how to effect savings and the Tribunal accepts that the redundancy of the claimant’s post was a last resort for the respondent.
However, the Tribunal finds that albeit without mala fides there was a failure to afford to the claimant any or any reasonable procedures. Rather the respondent made an assumption that the claimant would not be interested in anything less than her current position.
The Tribunal notes that neither the respondent nor the claimant proposed any alternatives to redundancy. However, a greater onus lies on the respondent to so do.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2007 succeeds and the Tribunal awards the claimant compensation in the amount of €1,800.00. In calculating the level of award the Tribunal took into consideration that the failure by the respondent was a procedural failure and the fact that the Tribunal was less than satisfied at the claimant’s efforts to mitigate her losses as she is obliged to.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal