Clail v Kearney & Anor (t/a Ballymena Meats) [2004] NIIT 319_04 (10 May 2004)


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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Clail v Kearney & Anor (t/a Ballymena Meats) [2004] NIIT 319_04 (10 May 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/319_04.html
Cite as: [2004] NIIT 319_04, [2004] NIIT 319_4

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


     
    THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
    CASE REF: 319/04
    APPLICANT: Osmond James Clail
    RESPONDENT: Brian Kearney and Jimmy Murray

    t/a Ballymena Meats

    DECISION

    The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant's complaint of unfair dismissal is not well founded and it is dismissed.

    Appearances:
    The applicant was not present and was not represented at the hearing.
    The respondent was represented by the manager of the relevant factory, Mr Terence Brown.
    REASONS
  1. These reasons are given in summary form.

  2. The applicant was not present and was not represented at the time and place fixed for the hearing. The applicant had recently written to the Central Office of Industrial Tribunals, pointing out that he intended to be on holiday from 10 May 2004 and that he wished the tribunal to proceed with the hearing in his absence. The tribunal decide to dispose of the application in the absence of the applicant, and did so, having giving due consideration to the undated letter, to the originating application and to the notice of appearance.

  3. The respondents accepted that the applicant had been dismissed; they contended that the applicant had been dismissed because, as a result of a downturn in business, there was a reduction in the requirements of the respondents for employees to carry out work of the particular kind carried out by the applicant.

  4. Accordingly, the issues in this case were as follows. First, was there truly a redundancy situation, as contended by the respondents? (If so, this was a potentially fair reason for dismissal). If we were satisfied that the employer had shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal, the next issue was whether or not the dismissal was actually fair or unfair (See Article130 (4) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order1996).

  5. Mr Brown gave evidence on oath. Having considered that evidence, we found the following facts. This applicant's key tasks (while employed by the respondent) were as follows: He had to break down the quarters of beef and to saw them. As a result of a downturn in business, the work formerly carried out by Mr Clail, and by others in the same role, was now being carried out by their respective supervisors (as part of the roles of the latter individuals in their capacities as supervisors). Some weeks before Mr Clail's dismissal, new employees were taken on. However, those employees were not doing the job which he had done. They were employed primarily for the purpose of packing and pushing meat to the boning hall. Those new employees were being paid less than Mr Clail. Since Mr Clail's dismissal, some new posts have arisen within the factory. However, those were posts which were unsuitable for Mr Clail, such as a telephone sales post and a HGV driver post.

  6. The basic thrust of this unfair dismissal complaint is the allegation that there was no real redundancy situation and the argument that, in any event, the dismissal was unfair because suitable alternative employment was available for the applicant and was not offered to him. On the basis of the sworn testimony of Mr Brown, we find against the applicant, and in favour of the respondent, on both of those issues. We find that there was a genuine redundancy situation and we also conclude that there was no suitable alternative employment, which could reasonably have been offered to the applicant.

    7. Chairman:
    Date and place of hearing: 10 May 2004 at Belfast
    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/319_04.html