A car salesman whose redundancy was blamed on the recession by his former employers, was awarded €7,800 after an employment tribunal deemed his dismissal unfair.
Kevin Brady (45 ), Coolnagun, Lismacaffrey, Co Westmeath was employed by Mullingar Nissan, Lough Sheever Corporate Park, Mullingar, between 1997 and 2002, and from 2004 to 2008 when he was dismissed.
An “uneasy relationship” existed between both parties for the final year, the tribunal held, after Eromlig Ltd, trading as Mullingar Nissan employed a second salesman in November of that year. Brady claimed this employee’s duties were similar to his, but Mullingar Nissan told the tribunal this second sales executive had responsibility for internet sales, which accounted for one third of all car sales, and that if he was not present there was no one else capable of uploading the data.
Brady, the claimant, told the tribunal at its most recent convening in Mullingar last month that he did not receive any contract of employment, any terms of employment or information on disciplinary and grievance procedures, and when he was given a written warning and a final warning it was his first experience with formal disciplinary procedures. This was not contested.
He claimed that on November 7, 2008 he was called to a meeting and issued with a letter informing him that due to the downturn in the economy, Mullingar Nissan had to make him redundant. He did not receive advance warning that redundancy was a possibility or what the content of the meeting would relate to.
The claimant discovered that a salesperson was employed after his redundancy, but Nissan pointed out this was just a coincidence as he was employed when the non-redundant sales executive handed in his notice after the completion of his one year contract in late November 2008.
Enda O’Carroll, solicitor for the garage told the tribunal that due to the downturn the company could not sustain two sales executives and one would have to be made redundant. He said the claimant was chosen because his only duty was car sales, while the other sales executive had responsibility for internet sales, supervision of staff, and standing in for the manager in his absence.
However he did admit that at the meeting of November 7, 2008 the owner of Mullingar Nissan did not specifically inform the claimant that the lack of sales could lead to redundancies, and that a decision was made two weeks prior to this meeting that the claimant and two other staff members would be made redundant.
The three-man tribunal found Brady’s claim successful on the grounds his employment was terminated without notice, and awarded him €2,400 in lieu of that notice and an additional €400, being the equivalent to five days annual leave.
With regard to Brady’s claim that he was unfairly selected for redundancy, the tribunal was of the opinion that the claimant and the other employee involved had different skills and found the claimant was not unfairly selected. However, the tribunal was not satisfied by Mullingar Nissan’s argument that fair procedures were used in the redundancy process, and found that the dismissal was unfair. Brady was awarded a further €5,000 for this.
