The recent case of Henry Gwynn-Jones against the recommendation of the Rights commissioner in the case of John Dawson UD 1480/2011 concerned an appeal by the employer against the recommendation of a Rights Commissioner decision ref: r-096375-ud-10/JOC.
In this case the employee gave evidence that he was informed by letter dated 7th December 2009 that he would be made redundant from 1st March 2010 and that the work he had been undertaking was now being done by another person whom he had trained. It was the respondent’s position that it was experiencing financial difficulties, had difficulties with a neighbouring landowner and that it was not viable to continue with the Shoot.
Unsurprisingly the Tribunal found that (a) a redundancy situation did not exist as the employee’s role still existed and (b) even if the redundancy was a fair redundancy, fair procedures were not afforded to the claimant in effecting his redundancy for the following reasons:
1. Possible alternatives to redundancy were not discussed.
2. There were no selection criteria agreed or otherwise; the claimant was simply selected for redundancy.
3. The claimant was not offered an appeal on the decision to make him redundant.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Rights Commissioner and varied the award to compensation in the amount of €43,184 over and above the redundancy lump sum.