[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Hagan v New Quay Developments Ltd [2009] NIIT 250_09IT (27 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2009/250_09IT.html Cite as: [2009] NIIT 250_9IT, [2009] NIIT 250_09IT

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

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 250/09

CLAIMANT: Jarlath Hagan

RESPONDENT: New Quay Developments Ltd

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was not unfairly selected for redundancy by the respondent. The claim is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mrs Watson

Panel Members: Mr Irwin

Mr McAnoy

Appearances:

The claimant did not appear and was not represented.

The respondent was represented by Mr Ridgeway of Employment Law Advisory Services

Preliminary Matters

1. The tribunal was informed that neither the claimant nor Mr Michael Kiddle, his Trade Union representative had arrived. The respondent's representative had arrived from Manchester and there were 5 witnesses and a bundle of documentation on behalf of the respondent.
2. The tribunal clerk made contact with the claimant by telephone and was informed that he had been told by Mr Kiddle that the date of the hearing was 7 July 2009. The claimant was in Scotland and asked that the hearing be adjourned to give him and Mr Kiddle an opportunity to attend.
3. The tribunal noted that the Notice of Hearing for 1 July 2009 had been sent to the claimant's home address as well as Mr Kiddle and the respondent and its representative, on 9 April 2009. The tribunal asked the respondent's representative, Mr Ridgeway, if he wished to respond to the request for an adjournment.
4. Mr Ridgeway objected to the adjournment and advised the tribunal that he was surprised that the claimant and Mr Kiddle were not aware that the hearing was scheduled for 1 July rather than 7 July as they had each received the letter from the tribunal office as everyone else had, and as they, along with two of the respondent's employees, had met the previous week at the Labour Relations Agency in an effort to settle the case. It was unlikely, in Mr Ridgeway's view, that the date of the impending hearing had not been referred to at some point at, or in arranging, the LRA meeting. If the tribunal was minded to agree to adjourn the hearing, the respondent would seek their costs incurred in preparing for and attending the hearing that day.
5. The tribunal clerk spoke again with the claimant and Mr Kiddle and informed them that the respondent intended to claim its costs if the hearing did not proceed. After a telephone discussion with Mr Kiddle, the claimant telephoned the tribunal clerk back and informed her that he wished to withdraw his application to adjourn.
6. The tribunal then considered The Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, in particular Regulation 3, the Overriding Objective of dealing with cases justly, and Rule 27 (5) and (6) which state;-

(5) "If a party fails to attend or to be represented (for the purpose of conducting the party's case at the hearing under rule 26) at the time and place fixed for such hearing, the tribunal may dismiss or dispose of the proceedings in the absence of that party or may adjourn the hearing to a later date.

(6) If a tribunal wishes to dismiss or dispose of proceedings in the circumstances described in paragraph (5), it shall first consider any information in its possession which has been made available to it by the parties."

7. As indicated above, the respondent had prepared a bundle of documentation for the tribunal. This was a comprehensive bundle and included all correspondence between the parties and minutes of the appeal hearings at which the claimant and Mr Kiddle had appeared and presented the claimant's response to the respondent's decision to make his position redundant. The tribunal decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the claimant and his representative.

Issue for consideration

8. Had the claimant been unfairly selected for redundancy from his position of Contracts Manager by the respondent?

Decision

9. At the end of the hearing, the tribunal retired and considered the oral and documentary evidence presented by the respondent and the originating claim form of the claimant. The tribunal then delivered its decision to dismiss the claim and gave oral reasons which are summarised below.
10. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Contracts Manager from 1 August 2001 until he was selected for redundancy with effect from 30 September 2008.
11. In his originating claim form dated 16 January 2009, the claimant claimed that his selection for redundancy had been unfair and he claimed he had therefore been unfairly dismissed.
12. In hearing this claim in the absence of the claimant and his Trade Union representative, the tribunal have taken into consideration the content of the originating claim form and the response of the respondent.
13. The tribunal also heard and considered oral evidence on behalf of the respondent from Hazel Robinson who is the respondent's Human Resource Manager and who conducted the redundancy selection process. At the time of the hearing, Mrs Robinson was on maternity leave but she attended the hearing and the LRA meeting on behalf of the respondent.
14. Evidence was also given by Brian Quinn, Managing Director, Adrian Quinn, Operations Director, Alan Boyd, General Construction Manager who was also the line manager of the claimant and the other two Contracts Managers who were also considered for redundancy at that time and Anthony Jackson, Financial Director.
15. The tribunal also gave careful consideration to the comprehensive documentation prepared by the respondent and the Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation published by the Labour Relations Agency.
16. The tribunal paid particular note to the minutes of the hearing of the claimant's appeal against his selection for redundancy at which he was represented by Mr Kiddle who described the criteria used in the selection process as 'fair and standard criteria for redundancy.'
17. Having carefully considered all of the above, the tribunal were unanimously of the view that the selection of the claimant for redundancy was fair in all the circumstances. The tribunal dismissed his claim.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 1 July 2009, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: