The High Court has dismissed Paul Nolan’s application for an interlocutory injunction seeking to prevent Emo Oil Services Limited from giving effect to his redundancy and to require it to continue paying his salary and benefits.
In a judgment delivered on 21 January 2009, Miss Justice Laffoy held that Nolan’s employment had been lawfully terminated under his contract after he received more notice than the contract required. The court did not decide whether the redundancy was genuine or whether Nolan had been unfairly selected.
Nolan had worked as the company’s Credit Manager under a written contract from November 2001. In August 2008, the oil products supplier announced a second redundancy scheme amid the economic downturn. After Nolan returned from annual leave, he was told on 3 September that his position was being made redundant. The company later gave 30 November as the termination date and issued a redundancy notification on 5 September. It also offered him an ex gratia payment of €9,100.
Nolan argued that there was no genuine redundancy or, alternatively, that he had been unfairly selected. He alleged that his working relationship with Managing Director Gerry Wilson had deteriorated after Nolan declined a credit manager role with a competitor, and that Wilson had sidelined him and begun dealing directly with a subordinate. Wilson denied that account. The company said the economic conditions prompted the redundancy and that Wilson and the Financial Controller would take on Nolan’s functions. The judge said the affidavits contained conflicts that the court could not, and should not, resolve on this application.
The company argued that Nolan’s redundancy challenge could only be pursued under the Unfair Dismissal Acts. The judge accepted that argument. She said an employee could bring a common law claim for wrongful dismissal or pursue a statutory unfair dismissal claim, but the two routes were distinct. Since Nolan had received the four weeks’ notice required by his contract, the court found no breach of contract or basis for the constitutional claim discussed in the judgment.
The judge rejected Nolan’s reliance on an earlier case involving an employee whose contract had been terminated immediately despite an entitlement to notice. She said that case did not establish a right to challenge the genuineness of a redundancy in a High Court action where the contract had been terminated with proper notice.
The company also argued that the redundancy was genuine and that Nolan was not selected from a pool of employees. Laffoy J. made no finding on those submissions, saying they were for a different forum. The order dismissed Nolan’s injunction application; it did not determine the underlying redundancy dispute.