THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 254/04
259/04
305/04
CLAIMANTS: Bernie McGonigle
Mark Patrick Patton
Malachy Conroy
RESPONDENT: Adria Ltd
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimants were not unfairly selected for redundancy and their claims are dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President: Mrs M P Price
Members: Mr Sidebottom
Mrs Kelly
Appearances:
The claimants did not appear.
The respondent was represented by Mr G Grainger, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Elliott Duffy Garret, Solicitors.
- The tribunal are satisfied that the claimants had been notified of the hearing in the Strabane Courthouse and they had not appeared.
- The claimants' written application forms were treated as written representations of their claims and the respondent called evidence in relation to the claims made by the claimants.
Issues
- The issue for the tribunal to decide was:-
"Whether there was a reasonable procedure for redundancy and whether it was fairly implemented in the claimants cases".
Facts found from the evidence
- The tribunal accepted that there was a redundancy situation in October 2003. The tribunal accepted that the claimants were members of the GMB Union and the selection criteria used by the company had been agreed with the unions some 2 – 3 years before this exercise. The tribunal was shown a scoring matrix which was used for each and every employee assessed for redundancy and were satisfied that the claimants were scored in a consistent manner in relation to the criteria.
First-named claimant – Bernie McGonigle
- This claimant was a Unit Manager in the company. She complained that there was an overlap between the scorings that she was given in relation to absences and frequency of absences and the net result that she got 45 marks out of a possible 95 in total. She also complained in relation to the way her grading assessment was done.
- Mrs McGettigan (nee Casey), who was Human Resources Manager, gave evidence in relation to the three claimants. There were seven employees assessed within the claimants' nominated Unit and she was ranked lowest. The tribunal saw that under attendance she had had three to four instances of absence and she had had an absence of over 13% in a nine-month period. However, her points for frequency of absence were halved because she had over 20% absence. This was set out in the scoring matrix and instead of having ten points for attendance she had five points. She had no points deducted for discipline and she had 20 points given because she had over 11 years service with the company. She had been assessed for capacity with 35 out of 40 points.
- She appealed her selection for redundancy and a hearing was held on 20 October 2003. She was offered the right to be accompanied by a work colleague but declined the offer. There were two employee representatives present at the appeal hearing. The panel at the appeal considered the points she had raised and sent her a letter dated 28 October 2003 explaining their findings on the appeal and dealing with each of the points that she raised. She was offered an opportunity to be redeployed to a direct operative position but she did not wish to take it.
Conclusion of the tribunal
- The tribunal has considered the reasons put forward by the respondent and is satisfied that the agreed selection criteria were implemented correctly and because of the claimant's scoring, after using the matrix, she was fairly selected for redundancy. The tribunal dismisses her application.
The second-named claimant - Mark Patrick Patton
- The claimant was employed as a Maintenance Technician and was informed of his redundancy in October 2003. He complained that he had broken his right foot in January 2003 and had to refrain from work for eight weeks on medical advice. This absence was counted against him and he also complained that he had not been graded twice in one year.
- The tribunal saw the scoring matrix applied to the claimant. He had an attendance rating of 8 - 12.9% which gave him five marks, as opposed to 0% absence which gives 15 marks. Frequency of absences meant that he got ten marks and for timekeeping he got 15 marks which was the best mark. He got 15 marks for length of service which meant that he had a total of 65 out of a possible 105 marks. He appealed the decision to make him redundant and that was heard on 23 October 2003. He raised various points which were also raised in his complaint to the tribunal. He received a letter on 27 October 2003. The letter noted that the respondent was aware of his concern about deducting points because of an absence through injury. However, they stated that all absence has to be recorded and measured accurately in order to comply with the selection criteria. He was also offered a chance to redeploy to an operative position but turned it down.
Conclusion of the tribunal
- The tribunal has considered the reasons given by the respondent for its redundancy procedure and the way in which it was implemented in the claimant's case. We do not find that he was unfairly selected for redundancy or that the selection criteria were unreasonable or unfair.
Third-named claimant - Malachy Conroy
- The claimant was a Technician and he was selected for redundancy. In his application form he stated that the selection criteria were unfair and unreasonable. He complained about the two categories of percentage absence and frequency of absence. He complained also about his grading assessment. The tribunal saw the scoring that he received and out of a maximum of 95 points he received 80. He had three to four absences which meant he got ten points instead of 15. He got a full 15 in relation to less than 4% of absences. His timekeeping received the full allowance of 15 marks and he got 20 marks for length of service. He was given 20 marks out of a possible 30 for grading. He was graded by his supervisor, Robert Leckey. As a result of the scoring the claimant ranked 8th of the 11 employees in his nominated Unit. He was the last person selected from this Unit. He appealed the decision and his appeal hearing was held on Monday 20 October 2003. The ground of his appeal was that he should have only had two absences not three to four and he appealed against the marks for his grading. As a result of this appeal a letter was sent to the claimant on 27 October 2003 saying that they had checked the attendance records and confirmed that an error occurred in recording of absence across a period of two weeks in May, but they stated that error still produced three periods of absence and his scoring remained the same. The appeal panel accepted the claimant's point that Technicians had not been graded since their contracts were re-issued. Having accepted it, they said that as none of the others have been graded "we believed it was a fair and consistent measurement for all the Technicians being considered for redundancy" and in other words he was not treated differently. He was offered redeployment as a Direct Operative and he chose not to take up the offer.
Conclusion of the tribunal
- Having considered the evidence given by the Human Resources Manager and having looked at the application form and the various documents in relation to scoring and notes of meetings, the tribunal is satisfied that the selection criteria agreed by the trade union and the management some two to three years before this selection process were reasonable and they were implemented fairly in the claimant's case and so his application for unfair selection for redundancy is now dismissed.
- The tribunal also records that these three claimants were paid their full statutory redundancy entitlement.
Vice President:
Date and place of hearing: 10 April 2006, Strabane
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
