Training manager appeals dismissal at newspaper group

A HIGH Court decision will be given next week on whether an interlocutory injunction will be granted to a 47-year-old group training manager with a newspaper group who is seeking orders restraining his dismissal and directing he be paid pending a full hearing of the case.

The proceedings have been taken by Michael O’Mahony of Ashdene, South Douglas Road, Cork, against Examiner Publications (Cork) Ltd, Thomas Crosbie Holdings Ltd and Thomas Crosbie Printers Ltd.

David Holland, senior counsel for Mr O’Mahony said his client was earning €69,200 a year and had a substantial mortgage along with a wife, who was not in employment, and two children.

Counsel said his client had worked with the defendants for 30 years but had never received a contract. On August 10 he was advised he was to be made redundant and on August 26 was sent a redundancy notice, which was to take effect from October 22. He was appointed training manager in or around 1998.

In 2008, he was called to a meeting and told by then managing director Anthony Dinan his budget would be significantly reduced and he would be working in the accounts and payroll department. A colleague who had entered the meeting before him had been made redundant.

He (Mr O’Mahony) was very shaken after the meeting asked the managing director: “Will I be safe?” and was told “you will be all right”. He was told if the new role did not work out he would be redeployed back to the Examiner on the same terms and conditions. He was relieved and agreed to the proposal.

The court was told the managing director retired in April and in August Mr O’Mahony was called in by group HR manager Barry Colgan and told the training role was being made redundant as there was no likelihood of training needs and the company could not pay more than €36,000 in statutory redundancy.

Counsel submitted that the newspaper group had not at any stage considered redeployment in the group.

John Lucey SC for the newspaper group said the alleged words spoken by the former managing director could not amount to a clear statement of intent in the way it appeared to have been understood by Mr O’Mahony.

Counsel submitted that the complaints made by the plaintiff were more proper matters to be considered by the Employment Appeals Tribunal rather than by the courts. The tribunal was mandated to consider the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the employer over the dismissal and in this regard Mr O’Mahony would not be restricted to rely on strict legal principles of misrepresentation to advance his case. The court also heard it had not been possible to maintain Mr O’Mahony’s position because financial circumstances had worsened. Six senior managers of the plaintiff’s standing had been made redundant recently and the terms had all been minimal, the court was told.

Ms Justice Mary Laffoy said she would give judgment next week.