THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	464/04

CLAIMANT:		Ivor Williams

RESPONDENTS:	1.	Cordiners Windows Limited
2.	Ella Barr
3.	Alan Weatherow			 

DECISION 

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the tribunal dismisses the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal. 

Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr C Hamill, of Counsel, instructed by Wilson Nesbitt Solicitors. 
The respondents were represented by Mr P Coll, of Counsel, instructed by Hewitt & Gilpin, Solicitors. 

Sources of Evidence

1.	The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and for the respondents from Alan Weatherow, general manager and Michael Davis, foreman.  The tribunal also received one bundle of agreed documents amounting to 103 pages.

The Claim and Defence

2.	The claimant claimed unfair dismissal through unfair selection for redundancy.  The first respondent asserted that the claimant took voluntary redundancy.

The second and third respondents are dismissed from the proceedings by consent.

The Issues

3.	(a)	Did the claimant’s employment end by a consensual termination? Or

(b)	Did the claimant’s employment end by reason of a voluntary redundancy? Or

(c)	Was the claimant made compulsorily redundant?

(d)	If the claimant was made compulsorily redundant did it amount to an unfair dismissal?

(e)	If the dismissal was unfair what is the appropriate remedy?

Findings of Fact

4.	(a)	The first respondent employed the claimant from 15 October 1992 to 23 
		January 2004 as a production operator/quality controller.  The first 
		respondent manufacturers double-glaze windows.

(b)	      General discussion took place among staff, including the claimant, about 
	voluntary redundancy at the workplace.

(c)	The claimant told Mr Davis, the first respondent’s foreman, that he was
 willing to be considered for voluntary redundancy.

(d)	On 23 January 2004 Mr Alan Weatherow, factory manager, held a discussion with the claimant about redundancy.

(e)	Mr Alan Weatherow offered the claimant redundancy.  While having concerns about clause 3 of the redundancy document produced by Mr Weatherow the claimant signed the document accepting redundancy.

(f)	The redundancy was a voluntary redundancy.

(g)	The tribunal preferred the evidence on behalf of the respondent as it found the claimant to be an unreliable witness.

The Law

5.	(a)	Where there is a termination of a contract of employment by consent there 
		cannot be an unfair dismissal.

(b)	Where there is a voluntary redundancy that is genuine there cannot be an unfair dismissal.

(c)	Where there is a dismissal it must satisfy the statutory requirements of Article 130 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 in order not to be unfair.

(d)	If there has been an unfair dismissal the remedy is set out in Articles 145 to 162 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

Application of the Law and Findings of Fact to the Issues

6.	(a)	The termination of the claimant’s contract of employment was not a
consensual termination.

(b)	The claimant was offered and accepted a voluntary redundancy and the claimant was not pressurised to apply for or accept a voluntary redundancy.

(c)	The claimant’s dismissal was not unfair.

(d)	The procedures followed by the respondent in dealing with this voluntary redundancy were somewhat shoddy.

(e)	Accordingly the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed.

	
Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	10 February and 4 April 2005, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: