ANJA Schille of Harbour View, Castle Hill, Carlingford was this week awarded €8,000 in compensation by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in an unfair dismissals case against the Four Seasons Hotel in Carlingford.
The case came about after the claimant, who was a receptionist in the hotel, was made redundant along with a store man and a marketing assistant.
Speaking at the tribunal, the hotel's general manager said that there were four receptionists working at the hotel but only work for three when the redundancy was made in October 2008.
In making the decision on which receptionist to make redundant, he admitted he did not have written criteria and told the tribunal that he did not consider their qualifications or length of service. He also said he did not consider putting all four on shorter working hours, adding that having receptionists working a three day week would be a 'nightmare'.
When making the decision the general manager said he was aware that the hotel's customers were increasingly drawn from an older age group than before and it was his view that the claimant was less skilful and less patient in dealing with older people than the other receptionists. He said he felt the three other receptionists were better at their jobs and said he had come to this conclusion by observing the receptionists working and putting himself in the mindset of a customer.
He admitted that he did take on another member of staff at a receptionist's salary but said her job was primarily sales although he did admit that she provided cover for reception as well. He said he did not authorise the placing of an advertisement for a receptionist in the local newspaper with the claimant admitting later that to her knowledge no one was taken on for the job.
The tribunal came to the determination that there was a need for redundancy against a difficult economic backdrop.
However, the three person committee came to the conclusion that no reasonable attempt was made on the part of the employer to formulate a selection process in advance of making a decision on the redundancy. They noted that no consideration was given in relation to length of experience, additional skills or qualifications and capabilities.
The tribunal found that the respondent could not give 'any reasonable or substantive reasons' for the selection of the claimant for redundancy and added that the onus rested on the respondent to demonstrate that the selection was fair in all circumstances.
