ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000858

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/02/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant was employed as a waitress by the respondent in South Dublin and in September 2015 when it was decided to close the business she was consulted about the possibility of alternative employment.

Eventually a number of offers were made to her to redeploy to other outlets operated by the company. There were in Dundrum, where she then worked, Suffolk St, Dublin or in outlets in Swords or Liffey Valley.

She rejected the latter two on the grounds of the excessive travelling time involved, but also the Suffolk Street option on the same basis. (She lives in South County Dublin).

She rejected the first referred to as it was a fast food, non seated restaurant and she would not be employed as a waitress. She also did not want to accept it as she had previously worked there (eight years earlier) and said she had a difficulty over the non payment of overtime. This was a once off event and was resolved when she raised it.

There was also a conflict over her hours. She said she wanted to move from a three day week to full time work.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

Prior to 1st October 2015, the Respondent employed the complainant in the operation of its franchised restaurant business from leased premises at Dundrum Town Centre, Dundrum, Dublin 16

On 1st October 2015 the lease of the business premises held by the Respondent was terminated.

Around 1st September 2015, prior to the termination of the lease the company met all its staff, including the complainant, to discuss the forthcoming closure and their employment options after the closure. At that time the company was confident that it would be able to offer to redeploy all staff to other franchised restaurants operated by it or its associated companies on the same terms and conditions as had applied to each staff member employed in the Business.

Staff members, including the complainant, were advised at this meeting that in the event of their being offered comparable alternative employment and declining to accept such offer, they would not be entitled to receive any redundancy payment.

Four offers were put to the complainant all of which she rejected. These were all on the same terms as her then current employment although this had changed on her return from maternity leave, it says, at her request.

Findings and Conclusions

I have carefully considered all relevant evidence that was laid before me in the course of, prior to the hearing.

The company procedures for processing the redundancy met the requirements of good practise in all respects. Ultimately, of eighteen employees all but four got alternative employment within the company. Of the others, three left on a voluntary basis and the fourth is the current complainant.

I find that while two of the alternative offers of employment; those in Liffey Valley and Swords could not be regarded as reasonable alternatives the other two could; one was in the same building as she previously worked in and any change in her work content was insignificant. Her reason for not wanting to go back there over a very minor issue regarding her wages (eight years previously) carries no weight.

The other option was a matter of twenty minutes away from her previous employment on possibly the best urban public transport connection in the State.

Both of these can be considered ‘reasonable’ offers of alternative employment and her explanations do not justify her rejection of them.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

For the reasons outlined above I dismiss the claim and no entitlement to a redundancy payment arises.

Dated:   7 April 2016