The High Court has refused Michael Horan’s appeal against an Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) determination dismissing his claim for redundancy payments from CWS – Boco Ireland Limited. Mr Justice Roderick Murphy delivered judgment on 7 November 2012.
The dispute concerned whether Mr Horan’s position became redundant when the respondent’s Naas Road facility closed in November 2009. He said he had worked as a delivery driver from April 2003 and had been injured in a road crash. He was submitting medical certificates stating that he could not work. The EAT had concluded by a 2–1 majority that his claim failed because the company maintained he remained an employee.
A Labour Relations Commission proposal for an orderly closure set terms for employees on long-term absence. It said the company would apply the agreement’s terms to an absent employee who provided a doctor’s certificate confirming full fitness to return by 27 November 2009; other cases would be reviewed individually. Mr Horan received a letter dated 9 November saying he was being made redundant from 27 November. The company said a letter dated 12 November withdrew that notice and placed him in the long-term-absence category. Mr Horan denied receiving it.
The judgment records conflicting medical material. A certificate said Mr Horan was fit to return from 16 November, while other certificates stated he was unable to work. A company occupational-health assessment concluded he was unfit to return to his previous job, which involved driving and heavy manual handling. The judge noted that the return-to-work certificate was not exhibited in the High Court affidavits and that the EAT said the certificate and occupational-health assessment had not been presented in evidence there.
On appeal, Mr Horan argued that the EAT had misapplied the redundancy legislation and mishandled the evidence, including letters about redundancy and the facility’s closure. The respondent argued that no identifiable legal error or unsustainable factual finding had been shown.
The High Court said its role was not to reweigh evidence heard by a specialist tribunal. It found that the EAT had considered the evidence and that sufficient material supported its conclusion. The judge said the inconsistent certificates meant the fitness certificate did not meet the agreement’s terms. The court was not satisfied that the EAT had erred in law on the matters raised and refused Mr Horan’s claim. The judgment did not grant redundancy or ex gratia payments.