EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
UD839/2015
CLAIM(S) OF:
David Smith
-claimant
against
Boylan Labels Limited T/A Boylan Labels
– respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. D. Mac Carthy S C
Members: Mr J. Goulding
Mr M. O'Reilly
heard this claim at Dublin on 10th June 2016
Representation:
Claimant(s) :Mr David Miskell, Derrygola, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
Respondent(s) : In person
Background
The Tribunal heard submissions from both parties.
Respondent’s submission
The claimant worked for the respondent as a printer from November 2013 to March 2015.
He was initially hired due to his experience in operating a specific printing machine that would allow the respondent to grow in a new market. By mid-2014 it became clear to the respondent that there were too many obstacles in entering said market so a decision was taken to terminate the project. The claimant was redeployed to the main label printing area. By mid-2015 the business was losing money and decided to reduce its staff. The claimant and another member of staff were selected for redundancy on the basis of a last in, first out policy. Both were informed that they would be re-employed in the event of any upturn in business.
When the respondent got busier they approached the claimant about coming back on a week by week basis. The claimant was not keen on this and wanted a permanent position or a sizeable increase in his hourly rate. This was refused by the respondent. The work was then offered to the other employee who had been made redundant.
Claimant’s submission
From a procedural perspective the claimant was unhappy about being brought into an unplanned meeting with no prior knowledge and also felt there was no consideration given to other avenues bar redundancy.
Determination
Under section 6(4)(c) of the Act redundancy is a substantial ground for justifying a dismissal. The Tribunal is satisfied that the redundancy was genuine.
The Tribunal also finds that the claimant was not unfairly selected under section 6(3). Selection was based on the first in, last out principle and the claimant was offered re-employment before the other person who was made redundant, who accepted the terms the claimant had refused.
The Tribunal did not find any procedural failures and does not find that the employer acted unreasonably under section 5(b) of the amending Act. Therefore the claim fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)