If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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!
CASE REF: 464/04
CLAIMANT: Ivor Williams
RESPONDENTS: 1. Cordiners Windows Limited
2. Ella Barr
3. Alan Weatherow
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
The Claim and Defence
The second and third respondents are dismissed from the proceedings by consent.
The Issues
(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
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
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
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: