ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000790

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/09/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, 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:

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

There was a clear cut redundancy situation. The complainant’s position of line manager was made redundant.

The complainant’s position was not filled by another person.

During discussions the complainant informed the respondent that she did not want to come back to work.

The respondent paid all monies as agreed and on time.

Decision:

Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

Issues for Decision:

Was the complainant unfairly selected for redundancy and was she thereby unfairly dismissed?

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, states:

Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

Section 6(4) of the Act states:

Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

1. the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

2. the conduct of the employee,

3. the redundancy of the employee….

Decision:

The complainant was employed as a line manager by the respondent. Employment commenced in November 1987 and terminated on 6 November 2015. The complainant was employed in a full-time position and was paid €20.70 per hour. The respondent operates a food processing factory.

The background to the redundancy issue was that the products being manufactured by the respondent had changed greatly over a number of years. The factory was now producing food ingredients and as a result the production of sausages was declining and in 2015 constituted about 10% of overall business. This was expected to reduce even more in 2016 / 2017. The respondent operated three production lines and the complainant was the supervisor for the Raw Line (sausages).

A review of the operations was carried out in summer 2015 and a decision was made that the position of Raw Line Supervisor would be made redundant. The evidence on behalf of the respondent was that, having received advice on the matter, a matrix of skills / experience for the three supervisors was drawn up with points awarded over 12 categories plus additional points for years of service (the complainant being the most senior supervisor). There was no direct input by the employees involved in this process. The complainant scored lowest in this exercise.

On Monday, 5 October 2015, management wrote to the complainant inviting her to a meeting “to discuss the restricting business in the frozen line and the proposed plan for (the respondent) going forward.” She was also advised of her right of representation. This meeting took place the following day, 6 October 2015, and the complainant opted not to be represented. Management stated that they advised the complainant of the proposal to run down the production line and the consequent decision to make her redundant.   The respondent raised the issue of alternative employment and was advised that there could be work as an operative but not as a supervisor. The meeting ended inconclusively and the complainant left the premises and was given a letter advising her that a further meeting would be held on 12 October 2015 and that the purpose of the meeting “is to discuss the terms of your redundancy.”

The complainant stated that on Wednesday she weighed up her options and decided that financially she had no option but to accept redundancy. Management stated that the complainant contacted them requesting that the meeting be brought forward as the complainant knew what she wanted. It was also stated that management were reluctant to agree to the request as they felt that there should be a cooling-off period between the meetings. Nevertheless a meeting was arranged for that afternoon. At this meeting the complainant was advised that she was entitled to the statutory redundancy payment plus 8 weeks notice which she would not be required to work. Management stated that the complainant expressed an opinion that after 28 year’s service she should receive more than the statuary payment. The cheque for the payment and the required paperwork were then completed and the complainant signed for same. The complainant collected personal items and left the premises. The supervision of the production line has since been performed by the remaining supervisors.

When an employer is considering a redundancy situation it is of paramount importance that there are sound and justifiable criteria in respect of the selection process. In this case management prepared a selection matrix in relation to the three supervisors. There is no evidence that the staff concerned were advised of this process nor that the results were discussed with the complainant. The complainant might well have challenged some of the markings if she had been aware of them. The problem though is that the complainant effectively pre-empted the consultation process by insisting that the second meeting be brought forward by several days and that she be issued with her redundancy papers. I can accept that the complainant was disappointed that after long years of service it was only proposed to pay her statutory entitlement but she decided not to adhere to the proposed consultation process. In these circumstances there was no challenge to the selection procedure nor any exploration of possible alternative employment.   The complainant’s actions in insisting on her redundancy being brought forward effectively terminated matters.

Taking all of the above into consideration I find that the complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Dated:   23-November -2016