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 >> Gilmartin v Adman Publishing Ltd [2010] NIIT 2077_10IT (16 December 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/2077_10IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 2077_10IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1480/10 IT
CLAIMANT: Brian Barkley
RESPONDENT: Stephen Millar
DECISION
The tribunal unanimously finds that the claimant has failed to establish that he was unfairly dismissed and his claim is dismissed in its entirety.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr T Browne
Members: Mrs M McReynolds
Ms G Ferguson
Appearances:
The claimant appeared and represented himself.
The respondent attended and was represented by Messrs Barry Fox, Solicitors.
THE ISSUE
1. The tribunal had to determine the reason for the dismissal of the claimant. His dismissal was accepted by the respondent, who claimed that it was by reason of redundancy. The claimant accepted that there was a redundancy situation within his place of employment, but stated that he had been replaced a few weeks later by a trainee, and that he should have been reinstated instead. He also made the case that he ought to have been offered alternative work within the respondent’s business, or in the alternative that he could have worked fewer hours.
FINDINGS OF FACT
2. The tribunal received oral and written evidence and made the following findings of fact:
3. The claimant was employed as a joiner by the respondent in the respondent’s family-run joinery business from 1999 until 26 March 2010. There were at full capacity eight employees in the joinery workshop.
4. It was common case that the business ran into serious financial trouble during the last 1½ years with the loss of a major contract due to the economic downturn.
5. Due to the loss of this contract, it was also common case that the respondent had to look at possible redundancies; this is confirmed by correspondence in January 2010, sent to all of the employees, wherein the respondent set out the criteria which would be applied. These included adaptability and flexibility, which the respondent in evidence indicated did not apply as readily to the claimant as to others, because the work he had been engaged in was not as wide-ranging as others employed by the respondent. The claimant was therefore selected for redundancy and was dismissed for that reason in March 2010. There was no allegation or evidence of unfairness or partiality by the respondent in making this decision, and it was apparent to the tribunal at the hearing that there was no personal animosity between the parties which might have unduly influenced the decision.
6. The claimant did not raise any particular issue, either at the time or to the tribunal, for being selected for redundancy. His primary focus in bringing this claim was that a trainee had been retained by the respondent in April 2010. The tribunal found that the trainee was just that, namely still in effect a student, whose duties within the respondent’s workplace were confined mainly to menial tasks while learning his trade. He was not qualified or expected to do the skilled work undertaken by the claimant.
7. The claimant took issue with this to the extent that he stated that he would have done this sort of work, just to remain employed. The tribunal found that the other employees who were also made redundant could equally have done this sort of work, thereby not guaranteeing that the claimant could automatically have been offered this as an alternative form of employment.
8. The tribunal finds that the explanation offered by the respondent was reasonable, namely that the respondent has a history of taking on trainees, who do not perform work of a similar type to that of the claimant.
CONCLUSIONS
9. The claimant took no issue with the fact that there was a redundancy situation, nor with his selection for redundancy. The tribunal finds from the evidence that the claimant was made redundant.
10. The tribunal also concludes that there was no evidence that the engagement by the respondent was in any way a means of employing someone to do the work of the claimant when he ought to have been re-engaged instead.
11. The tribunal can find no evidence to support the claimant’s contention that he could properly have been offered reduced hours or alternative employment within the respondent’s organisation. The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent took reasonable steps in setting and applying appropriate criteria for selecting employees including the claimant for redundancy.
12. The tribunal is unanimously of the view that the claimant has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent behaved unreasonably in any way during this process, and his claim therefore is dismissed.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 12 October 2010, Belfast.
Date decision issued to parties:
