THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	1636/04
1637/04

APPLICANTS:	Michael Terence Dinnen		
			Eugene McPeake

RESPONDENT:	Daewoo Electronics UK Ltd		

DECISION 

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applications be dismissed. 

Appearances:
The applicants appeared in person.
The respondent was represented by Mr I Carroll of the Engineering Employers’ Federation.

Summary Reasons

1.	The applicants had worked for the respondent from May 1997 and October 2000 respectively until 9 April 2004 when they had been dismissed on the grounds of redundancy.

2.	There was no dispute about the facts.  The respondent, who is a manufacturer of consumer electronics, had faced problems due to competition from the Far East.  It became increasingly difficult to be competitive in costs and, in particular, with regard to the manufacture of drums for VCRs.  It was decided to close down the drum department and buy in the drums.  Initially no other areas were proposed for redundancy.  As there were a number of redundancies contemplated the respondent commenced consultations with the trade union and a number of meetings took place.  During these meetings the union raised a number of issues with regard to the pools from which the selection of the redundant personnel would be made and with regard to the criteria on the basis of which the selection process would be operated.  Originally, the respondent had proposed, in relation to technicians, that personnel should be chosen for redundancies from the drum department only, which was being closed down.  The trade union suggested that the pool, with regard to technicians and supervisors, should be wider.  The respondent considered the widening of the pools and reviewed all groups of technicians in the factory, discussing the matter with the individual managers of the departments concerned and with the senior general manager and production manager.  The respondent’s conclusion was that although some technicians were not comparable with the drum department those in the deck department were.  The respondent considered that both these groups carried out work which was not dissimilar and which was largely mechanical in nature and that drum technicians could transfer to the deck department with little training.  The respondent was prepared to accept a degree of re-training.  The respondent’s conclusion as regard the other groups of technicians was that the re-training period necessary would have been too long.

3.	As regards the criteria to be applied to the various pools there were considerable discussions also.  Originally, the respondent had proposed that no account would be taken of length of service.  Nor had the respondent proposed to take qualifications into account though the union suggested that they should.  The respondent’s thinking was that not everyone had an equal opportunity to attend courses leading to qualifications either if they had not been employed for a sufficient length of time or because for personal reasons, such as caring responsibilities, they were unable to allocate the time.  If any account was to be taken of length of service, and if qualifications were to be included as well, then many people would be unjustly penalised.  The respondent’s original suggestions were that appraisals should be taken into account.  The union were opposed to this on the basis that they were subjective and immeasurable.  Furthermore, the union were concerned that appraisals were carried out by different appraisers which might be inconsistent.  

4.	After considerable discussions over a number of meetings selection criteria were agreed at least to the extent that the union indicated they would not oppose the final package and these were the criteria which were adopted.  The criteria did allow for length of service but not for qualifications or for appraisals.  The criteria were based on attendance, time-keeping and discipline as well as length of service.  The provisions regarding absences covered all absences other than certain specified exceptions, with a saving for disability or work related accidents.  However, sickness, other than that related to disability or work related accidents, was not provided for as one of the exceptions, except in special circumstances to be negotiated separately.  

Following the adoption of these criteria they were applied to the relevant pool and both the applicants fell to be made redundant.

5.	The issue for the applicants, and for the tribunal, was whether the pool in which the applicants were included for the purpose of the exercise was appropriate and whether the criteria themselves were fair.  

6.	As regards the pool the applicants suggested that it was inappropriate to include the decking department in which they worked as part of the same grouping as the drum department.  In the applicants’ view the jobs were different.  They were technical jobs which should require qualifications and which should not have been open to persons who did not have such qualifications.  In the alternative other groups of technicians should have been included in the pool which would have widened it even further. In fact these issues were,  according to the respondent’s evidence, which was not contradicted, considered by the respondent. While they had originally suggested that the drum department should stand alone they had, at the request of the trade union considered the possibility of extending the pool and concluded that it was reasonable and possible to do so.  In the tribunal’s view it was not unreasonable in the circumstances that the respondent should have considered the matter.  They had been asked to do so by the recognised trade union.  They had concluded that the two departments which finally came to form the pool could be regarded as a single pool but that other groups of technicians could not.  While that is a conclusion with which others, like the applicants, might disagree it could not be said to be an unreasonable conclusion or one which it was not perfectly proper for the respondent to take.

7.	As regards the selection criteria it was suggested by the applicants that length of service should not have been included and further, that, in the case of Mr McPeake, an allowance should have been made for a period when he was in hospital with appendicitis.  It was also suggested that qualifications, again, should have been a factor.  Some of these issues had clearly been considered by the respondent.  Length of service had been included following representations from the trade union; it is a frequent basis for redundancy selection and could not be said to be unfair.  The provisions as regards sickness were consistent and not unusual.  Provision was made for consideration to be given to particular circumstances and there is no suggestion that any question of the particular hospital visit being included was raised by Mr McPeake during the course of the redundancy process.  The respondent had concluded that  formal qualifications were not required for the particular functions and this view had not been challenged by the trade union involved in the discussions.  These were matters which it was perfectly proper for the respondent to consider and the conclusions reached could not be said to be unreasonable.  The criteria themselves finally adopted were clear, objective and, in the tribunal’s view, fair.  It was not suggested that the criteria had been unfairly applied other than in relation to the hospital visit, which clearly did not satisfy the criteria, so no question of improper application arose.  The fact that the applicants were not members of the trade union who conducted in negotiations did not seem to the tribunal to affect the fairness of the criteria involved or, indeed, of the overall process.

8.	In all circumstances the tribunal were satisfied that a redundancy situation existed and that the respondent’s conduct in determining the pools and the selection criteria and in applying them had been fair and reasonable.  Accordingly, the applications fell to be dismissed.

 	

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	9 November 2004, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: