ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003353

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/08/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Terms of Employment (Information)Act 1994

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The claimant was employed on as an Accounts Assistant /Certification Officer with the respondent from the 23^rd.July 2014 to the 13^th.May 2016.The respondent received funding for the post from the Dept. of Social Protection under the Jobs Plus Scheme – repayment of the grant does not arise where the employment ceases for a genuine reason.

It was submitted that the claimant was never furnished with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment and that consequently the respondent was in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information)Act 1994.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent did not dispute the allegation of a breach of Section 3 of the Act

Decision:

On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing , I find the complaint to be well founded and require the respondent to pay the claimant €1,200 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2007

Summary of Respondent’s Position

The claimant was initially engaged under the Job Bridge scheme for 6 months in Sept. 2013 and returned to the company in July 2014 as a Certification Officer.She worked under the Job Plus Scheme , worked for 37.5 hours per week earning €24,000 per annum.She moved into the Finance Dept. in early 2015 as a data entry accounts assistant and continued there until she was made redundant in May 2016.It was submitted that an external agency was recruited to examine the needs of the Finance Dept . In late 2015 – they found there was insufficient work to justify a 5 day week for the claimant.She was advised by the CEO that the respondent would contract in an accountancy firm to do the monthly accounts .It was submitted that it became clear by March 2016 , that the claimant’s duties could be completed in 2 days per week and it was advanced that there was no other suitable role for the claimant.In April 2016, the CEO wrote to the claimant formally advising her of the reduction in her workload to 2 days per week and the ensuing exchanges between the parties was set out – the claimant disputed the proposed reduction in hours.A meeting with the claimant took place on the 19^th.April 2016 where she was advised that she was being made redundant as she did not want her hours reduced .The claimant appealed the decision to the CEO but the appeal was not upheld.

It was submitted that there was a justifiable redundancy , as the claimant was the only person in the role .While the job had initially been full time , it was decided following restructuring advice and after a period of reflection to make the position redundant.The work was now being done by an external contractor on a 2 day week basis.

Summary of Claimant’s Position

It was submitted that the claimant was advised by the CEO in April 2016 that on foot of an evaluation conducted by an external agency , the claimant was being placed on reduced hours – effectively resulting in a 60% pay cut.The union set out a chronology of the exchanges that took place between the claimant and the CEO on the dispute.It was submitted that the decision to make the claimant’s position redundant was taken before he dismissal letter of the 19^th.April – either between the claimant’s rejection of the respondent’s proposal on reducing her working hours or before the 1^st.April proposal on a 2 day week was made.It was argued that “ there was no period in which the claimant was informed of that the company was considering dismissal for redundancy during which she might have an opportunity to influence that decision.It was advanced that the respondent failed to engage in any meaningful consultation with the claimant.It was submitted that in the CEO’s letter of the 19^th.April , the reference to a restructuring of the finance function had not previously been discussed with the claimant.It was submitted that the failure to share the external consultant’s report was highly significant.The union questioned the bona fides of the job evaluation process and contended that it lacked credibility as the job holder did not participate in it.It was also advanced that the consultant’s report was at variance with the view expressed by the Financial Controller in July 2014 that he expected the claimant to work an average 37.5 hours per week.It was contended that no genuine consideration of alternative employment arose and that there was no discussion on selection criteria for redundancy and there was no evidence that any other staff member had been considered.The provisions of EAT determination UD206/2011 was invoked in support of the claimant’s position.

Decision

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and concluded on the basis of same that there was no meaningful engagement with the claimant about the original proposal to effect a significant reduction in her working week or indeed on the proposal to dismiss her by reason of redundancy.I find no compelling evidence was advanced to demonstrate that alternatives to redundancy were explored and no evidence of a transparent matrix for selection for redundancy was presented.Accordingly I uphold the complaint of unfair dismissal and require the respondent to pay the claimant €4,500 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Dated:   17^th November 2016