THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	3861/01

APPLICANT:	Josephine Griffin

RESPONDENTS:	1.	Western Education & Library Board
			2.	St. Josephs Boys School

DECISION 
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
Appearances:
The applicant was represented initially by Mr A Heasley of NIPSA and subsequently by Ms M Kilcullen

The respondents were represented by Mr A Colmer, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Mr M Brown of Education & Library Boards Legal Service.

SUMMARY REASONS

1.	The applicant took up employment as a science technician at St Josephs Boys School on 1 September 1995.  In June of 2001 the applicant’s post was identified for potential redundancy.  Following consultation the redundancy was confirmed and a letter issued indicating that the applicant’s employment should cease with effect of 23 November 2001.  The applicant made an unsuccessful appeal against this determination to the Independent Appeals Committee provided for in the procedures agreed with the applicant’s Trade Union.

2.	The applicant’s case, as it emerged at hearing, was that no true redundancy situation pertained in relation to her post; that the selection procedure applied was unfair in regard to the identification of the pool from which redundancies should come; and, finally, that she should have been re-deployed or considered for re-deployment in other posts which were or could have been available.

The applicant had also indicated in her Originating Application and by way of response to a Notice of Particulars dated 10 January 2002, following an Order requiring replies made on 23 May 2002, that the decision to make the applicant redundant was unfairly influenced by the respondents’ perception of her medical condition and by a period of illness.

3.	The respondents’ evidence was that by the beginning of 2001 the schools budget was under considerable strain.  A number of teachers had been made redundant, albeit voluntarily, and the numbers available for entry and to serve in the sixth form had been capped.  In addition, the school had taken advantage of the dis-application provisions so that pupils were enabled to take vocational courses at the North West College.  In 1996 the schools take in amounted to 168 pupils.  In the following year it was cut to 150.  A similar figure of 150 applied in 1999 and in 2000.  The dis-application process resulted in 48 less pupils studying science at the relevant time.  A survey was carried out into the work of the science department by the head of department which indicated that there was insufficient work to justify the employment of two technicians.  Finally, the science department, which had previously been located on three separate sites, had been brought together in one place, with all the laboratories being adjacent to each other on the one corridor.

4.	The applicant did not accept that the school was under increasing financial pressure.  She believed that any deficit could have been adjusted.  Nor did she accept there were fewer pupils.  She did state that she did not know if the dis-application process affected the science department although she did accept that the option of not studying science did become available.  She did accept that the overall number of pupils decreased but only by a small number.  She also accepted that there had been voluntary redundancies among the teaching staff.  She did not accept that the survey of the science department was satisfactory as she stated management were entitled to their opinion but she did not consider it to be fair or just.  She did not accept that there was a reducing need.  The applicant also considered that the search for a post for redundancy should have been made over a wider area or pool.

5.	The respondents’ also gave evidence that they had considered the possibility of effecting the redundancy among the technicians generally, not just the science technicians.  As well as the two science technicians there were three other technicians, each with a different area of expertise.  It was hoped that if a voluntary redundancy could have been effected in respect of one of these posts, the audio visual technician, a re-organisation of the work of the technicians could have taken place.  The respondents also indicated that it did not seem appropriate to widen the pool of potential redundancies any further since the remaining administrative staff, comprising secretarial staff, classroom assistants for pupils with special needs, librarians and the like, related to posts requiring very different skills and duties which would make any satisfactory re-organisation impossible.

6.	As regards re-deployment there was no indication in the respondents evidence that, as at the time of the applicant’s post being identified for redundancy, in June of 2001, any real consideration had been given to re-deploying her elsewhere in the school.  However, following that decision the applicant and her Trade Union were, according to the correspondence submitted to the tribunal and accepted by the parties, invited to take part in consultations.  The Union had already been asked to make submissions as of the end of April and received a further invitation in June.  A number of matters were raised on the applicant’s behalf by her Union, including the possibility of re-deploying members of the technical support staff in the office.  It was not at that stage considered appropriate.  A further opportunity was given to the applicant to make representations on her own behalf and both she and her Union Representative attended a meeting on 3 October at which a variety of matters were raised including the possibility of the applicant being deployed to a post currently being recruited as a clerical assistant/receptionist.  According to the correspondence, and to the evidence given by the respondents at hearing, it was considered that the applicant’s qualifications were insufficient to meet the keyboarding demands of the post and were also below the advertised criteria.  It was the applicant’s case that she could and should have been trained up to the necessary standard; the management view was that their need was for a worker who could perform to the highest standards immediately in view of the nature of the post itself and the absence of the office manager at the relevant time.  The applicant also suggested briefly at hearing that she would have considered a post as a classroom assistant.  This had not been raised previously.

7.	The tribunal accepts that there was ample evidence on the basis of which the respondents could conclude that a redundancy situation existed in relation to one of the science technician posts.  Indeed, the tribunal is satisfied that such a situation did exist.  Once this fact is established it could be argued that there was no need to widen the pool further and that the only matter to be taken into account, according to the agreed procedures, was to determine which of the technicians was ‘last in’.  This was, in fact, the applicant.  However, the tribunal is satisfied that the respondents did consider the possibility of widening the pool to include the other technicians.  The tribunal also noted that, on the evidence of employment dates given for those technicians, the applicant would have been last in in that pool also.  The tribunal finds that the reasons given for not widening the pool any further were acceptable.  The selection procedure itself, being based on the principal of ‘last in first out’ was that agreed with the applicant’s Trade Union and was specifically accepted at the commencement of the case as being fair in the circumstances.  

8.	The tribunal accepts the evidence contained in the correspondence between the respondents on the one hand and the applicant and her Trade Union Representative on the other, that consideration was given to re-deploying the applicant in the clerical post which became available.  The tribunal finds that this would have involved a significant period of re-training and bedding in and that there were acceptable reasons for such a course not being adopted.  This post was the only post suggested during the course of the consultation process as being appropriate for the applicant.  The tribunal does not accept that appointment as a classroom assistant, which was briefly mooted by the applicant at the hearing, was a realistic suggestion.

9.	The applicant had referred to the respondent’s perception of her health but gave no evidence from which an inference of any negative perception could be drawn.  She did give evidence that she had been absent on health grounds but there was no evidence of any problem arising due to her health or of any unfavourable comment being made.  Her absence on health grounds and the identification of a redundancy situation arising among the science technicians were close in time but there was nothing to suggest to the tribunal that the two were in any way connected.

10.	Overall, the tribunal finds that the respondents handling of the matter fell within the range of reasonable responses in the various aspects of the situation.

11.	Accordingly, the tribunal finds that the applicant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was not unfairly dismissed.  The applicant is entitled to a redundancy payment.  The tribunal will reconvene to hear evidence as to applicant’s age, level of remuneration and length of service with a view to determining the amount of such payment.

12.	The respondents sought an Order for costs against the applicant in relation to proceedings to date on the basis that the applicant or the applicant’s representatives had conducted the proceedings unreasonably.  The tribunal considers that at least part of the problem arose as a result of the lack of detail and definition in the applicant’s replies to the respondents’ Notice for Particulars.  On the basis of those replies almost any matter could have been raised before the tribunal.  This deficiency could have been remedied at an earlier stage either on application by the respondents or by the tribunal itself.  Due to the nature of the case and its undoubted complexity, which it was specifically adverted to by the respondents, the tribunal is not satisfied that the hearing would have been significantly shorter even if the matter had been conducted more satisfactorily.  In these circumstances the tribunal does not consider it to be an appropriate case for the award of costs.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:16 May 2003, Limavady

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: