Case Number: ADJ-00018737. Workplace Relations Commission.
| Docket Number | ADJ-00018737 |
| Hearing Date | 05 June 2019 |
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018737
Parties:
|
|
Complainant |
Respondent |
|
Anonymised Parties |
A Branch Manager |
A Vehicle Servicing Organisation |
Complaint:
|
Act |
Complaint/Dispute Reference No. |
Date of Receipt |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 |
CA-00024146-002 |
14/12/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 5/6/2019, 30/10/2019,31/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
|
The complainant commenced employment on 3rd July 1989 and submits that he was unfairly dismissed when his employment was terminated on 23rd November 2018 by reason of redundancy.
During this hearing, submissions were substantial with copious volume of documentation and oral evidence heard over 3 days and, whilst I will not be referring to every event or reference every case law presented, I have taken into account all the submissions including oral and written made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence presented at the hearing. |
|
The respondent refuted that the complainant was unfairly selected for redundancy.
It was submitted that the termination of the complainant’s employment occurred after a full and thorough process was carried out during which the complainant was afforded full and fair procedures.
In 2016 the complainant was transferred from Location X to Location Z as part of the respondent’s Management Exchange Programme (MEP) following which the complainant returned again to Location X. In 2017 he transferred to Location Y following discussions between the complainant and the respondent and to support the complainant as he was dealing with stress related to his place of work at Location X. The respondent submitted that the complainant never raised any issues with moving to Location Y and indeed had made it clear that he never wanted to work at Location X again. While working at Location Y, the role of Branch Manager was vacant at Location X and the complainant never requested any wish for this role and that position was filled in July 2018 by an employee who has been with the respondent, working at another location, since 2015.
In January 2018 a review of all branches took place as was normal and it was confirmed that Location Y was one of 2 locations which had not completed upgrades. Some parts of the overdue upgrades for Location Y took place in May 2018. The other location listed as ‘outstanding’ for upgrades is a site which remains open therefore it would not be fair to assert that the complainant was advised of the closure of Location Y in January 2018. This decision only took place in August 2018 when a decision was taken to close Location Y as agreement on rent had not been reached and efforts to secure other potential sites had failed to materialise. The respondent submitted that it is not in their interest to close branches as their business model is based on providing customers with easy access to branches nationwide. It was regrettable that all six employees at Location Y were impacted by the closure.
On 28th August 2018 the complainant and the other employees were met by Ms A, HR Manager, to inform them of the decision to close the branch which had just been finalised the previous day. The complainant wanted to know what his redundancy entitlements was but the exact information was not available and the complainant was advised of an approximate figure of €35,000. The complainant laughed and said he would not accept such a payment and wanted €70,000 plus the company van and he requested that this would be brought to the attention of senior management which it was. The complainant was written to on 30th August 2018 confirming that his role was at risk, explaining the rationale and that all alternative viable options would be considered. It was also confirmed to the complainant that there were no other branch manager positions available but there was a role available as a mechanic at Location X. It was not possible to offer the complainant the role at Location X as Location X and Location Y are two distinct entities operating separately and while employees move across branches employees are not shared between branches.
A consultation meeting took place on 12 September 2018 with the complainant’s solicitor. The complainant appeared to focus on a role of Branch Manager at Location X albeit there was no vacancy there. At the final consultation meeting the complainant was advised that there were no alternative branch manager roles available, that the mechanic position remained open and that his employment would terminate due to redundancy if no acceptable alternative role was identified. The complainant was advised on 28 September 2018 that no alternative roles or solutions to the redundancy had been identified and that he was to be made redundant. The complainant appealed this decision to Mr B Financial Director and was advised on 5 November 2018 that the complainant’s appeal was not successful. The complainant was also advised that the decision to close Location Y was only made in August and not in January as the complainant had suggested.
The respondent submitted that a reasonable, thorough and comprehensive redundancy consultation process took place affording the complainant fair procedures but that unfortunately despite the complainant’s appeal the decision remained. It was further asserted that it was a genuine redundancy situation with fair selection, appropriate consultation process and there was no entitlement to an enhanced redundancy payment. The complainant had not sought employment until at least February and no evidence was provided regarding efforts to secure employment. The complainant had secured employment in July 2019 but his evidence was unreliable and inconsistent regarding his actual earnings and loss of earnings and it was submitted by the respondent that there had been no loss of earnings.
Evidence from Mr B Financial Director advised that Branch Y was not making any money and that there was a break clause within the contract for Location Y and as part of this break clause the respondent sought to secure agreement with the landlord about a rent reduction, However, despite their best negotiations and while they looked at other locations they were not able to... |
To continue reading
Request your trial