A preliminary issue was addressed by the Tribunal, namely that the respondent claimed that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim for unfair dismissal. This was based on the belief that the claimant had already received a recommendation from the Rights Commissioner on the same issue. However, the Tribunal held that the claim in before the Rights Commission related to his entitlement to an enhanced redundancy payment and as such they were not prohibited from hearing the claim for unfair dismissal.

The claimant was a butcher working for the respondent company which initially comprised of a factory and a farm for breeding cattle. Restructuring within the factory resulted in the claimant and one other butcher being the sole employees working in the factory. With further difficulties within the respondent company a decision was made to close the factory and outsource the production of sausages to another company. The claimant’s colleague was offered a position within this other company.

A meeting followed to inform the claimant of this decision. At this meeting the director and the human resources manager failed to inform the claimant that they had considered alternatives to letting him go. The claimant believed that the failure to offer an alternative to the claimant was related to a personal injuries claim which the claimant had brought against the company following an eye injury at work.

Whilst the Human Resources Manager and the Director claimed to have discussed alternatives for the claimant, they both failed to discuss these alternatives with the respondent.

The Tribunal held that the redundancy of the claimant was not effected in a fair and reasonable manner. The Tribunal held this belief on the basis of:
1. The failure of the respondent company to adhere to any fair procedures
2. The lack of discussion with the claimant in advance of the decision to make him redundant
3. The lack of discussion surrounding alternatives to redundancies. The Tribunal was particularly critical of the fact that “the respondent owned other entities where the claimant could have been redeployed to”
4. The claimant was not provided with a right to appeal this decision

It was on this basis that the Tribunal awarded the claimant compensation in the amount of €10,000.00.

To read the full case report:
http://bit.ly/1uKW9q6