BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Kavanagh v McKenna [2010] NIIT 06846_09IT (23 February 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/06846_09IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 6846_9IT, [2010] NIIT 06846_09IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 06846/09
CLAIMANT: Mary Kavanagh
RESPONDENT: Martin McKenna
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claim is dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mrs. M Watson
Panel Members: Mr. S Adair
Mr. W Irwin
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and represented herself.
The respondent appeared in person and represented himself.
1. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a General Assistant in his Pharmacy/Shop from 4 November 2003 until she was made redundant on
16 May 2009.
2. The respondent had three employees at the time of the redundancy. Both of the other employees had much longer experience than the claimant and held qualifications that meant that they were able to assist in the Dispensary in addition to their other shop duties.
3. Due to financial difficulties, the respondent had to choose a candidate for redundancy and choose the claimant as she had a more limited role to play in the business.
4. Subsequently, the parties had a meeting with the Labour Relations Agency and the claimant had received full settlement of the financial element of her claim but she proceeded to the hearing because she did not believe there was a need for the redundancy since others had been employed “in her job” shortly after she left.
5. Having heard the oral evidence of the respondent and examining the documentation he provided, the tribunal were satisfied that a redundancy had arisen, the respondent had followed a proper selection process and discharged his financial obligations to the claimant.
6. The tribunal were also satisfied that in her claim form, the claimant had claimed that she sought “Compensation only” and that she agreed this had been received.
7. For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal was also satisfied that when the respondent was in a position to refill the claimant’s former post, he did so by following proper recruitment procedures.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 28 January 2010, Londonderry.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
