Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Employee v Employer [2014]
Employee v Employer [2014]
Published on: 21/02/2014
Issues Covered: Dismissal
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

The claimant was made redundant. He had been a Client Services Supervisor in a firm that owns and sells outdoor media space. However, he argued two other employees should have been considered in the redundancy pool. The claimant was off sick due to an accident at work at the time he was made redundant. The effect of the termination was that he was not actually assessed for the company’s permanent health insurance scheme which would have resulted in him receiving 2/3 of his income at no cost to the company.

The employer argued that because of the drop in business the level of work was impacted in the claimant's role more than other supervisory roles. The employee's sick pay period was extended to 26 weeks. The claimant applied for the PHI scheme and the company sent him for a health assessment on 4th November 2011. However, he was dismissed by reason of redundancy before assessment was made.

The Tribunal was satisfied that prior to the meeting which took place between the parties on 24th November 2011, the respondent had already reached a decision to terminate the claimant’s employment. This meeting was the first occasion on which redundancy was raised with the claimant and he was given a pre-prepared letter of termination stating that the redundancy was for economic considerations, his RP50 form, cheques to cover redundancy, holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice and was informed that his P45 would be furnished in due course.

The Tribunal went on to conclude that the claimant was given no prior warning of the purpose of the meeting which took place on 24th November 2011, was not afforded an opportunity to prepare his response to the redundancy, was not offered the chance to bring any representative to the meeting or advised of any right of appeal. The claimant was not advised of any selection criteria which had been applied by the respondent to the selection process and was not afforded any opportunity to express an alternative view or make suggestions whether in relation to co-workers, salary reduction or re-deployment.

The claimant was awarded compensation in the sum of €29,998.53 being a sum in respect of 20 months' benefit to which the claimant would otherwise have been entitled if his employment had not been terminated and he was able to avail of the PHI scheme benefits.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/February/UD2293_2011.html 

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 21/02/2014
Q&A
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →