A MAN who suffered a heart attack just days after being unfairly made redundant will not receive any compensation, a tribunal ruled.

Ian Mathias, 50, from Christleton, who has been unable to work for two years due to ill health, says he will appeal the decision.

The father-of-four received his letter of redundancy from Saltney-based food manufacturer English Provender Company on November 20, 2008, and three days later was found on the kitchen floor by his wife Karen suffering from severe chest pains, which was later confirmed by his hospital consultant to have been a heart attack brought on by stress.

A tribunal at Kinmel Bay, North Wales, ruled that Mr Mathias, who has to take five tablets a day for his high blood pressure, would have been made redundant anyway as he had turned down a job offer two days prior to the redundancy and would not have accepted an alternative role in the company’s restructure.

However, judge Wayne Beard ruled that English Provender Company had unfairly dismissed Mr Mathias because the job was never formally offered to him and the consultation was insufficient.

He also ruled that Mr Mathias had been shown a document by the company in the September which stated that he was in line for one of two management roles in his department.

On November 18, 2008, Mr Mathias was then verbally offered a lesser role which he turned down due to it involving shift work, judge Beard concluded.

Mrs Mathias, who was representing her husband, said: “If the salary and job description had been discussed properly the perception of the offer would have been much different.

“We had remortgaged the house, any job was important to him at that time and even now.

“It took months and months for his health to come back. He did not refuse to take the job, he was under the impression things would go on from there. He’s worked shifts before, he’s never had a problem.

“He had no reason whatsoever, personally, to refuse shifts. No reason in the world.”

David Flood, representing English Provender Company, told the tribunal: “The failure of the respondent was there should have been a formal meeting after the remarks made by the complainant on the 18th and before the sending of the redundancy letter.

“Had there been this meeting the complainant would not have taken the job that was offered to him.

“There were other jobs in the structure that could have been made available to him. Those jobs would have involved a demotion and still involved shifts.

“The shifts were the significant factor in the claimant’s refusal. It is highly unlikely he would have changed his mind.”

Judge Beard concluded: “We find the complainant was unfairly dismissed. But also there will be no award or compensation as the situation would not have altered.

“We’ve concluded that the document did exist. It was not a sufficient consultation. The claimant should have been provided with proper documentation.”

Speaking to Mrs Mathias, he added: “You have impressed the tribunal in terms of the way you presented the case.”