ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001237

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

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00001643-001	22/12/2015

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/05/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney

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).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant is an employee of the Respondent for almost 17 years. Following the downturn in the Construction Industry, he was put on short time and also laid off for periods. He eventually submitted notice to his employer of his intention to claim redundancy in respect of the lay off. The Respondent company has ignored all correspondence from the Complainant in relation to his claim for redundancy. In addition to the above claim, the Complainant's Employer transferred elements of its business to a separate and unconnected company, Headcount Solutions Limited (Headcount) in or around the time of the aforementioned periods of lay-off and short time. The Complainant was assured by his employer that there would be a job for him with Headcount but after he went for interviews with Headcount, he was not offered a Job. We say that this arrangement between the Complainants Employer and Headcount is in breach of the Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertaking Regulations. The prepopulated nature / structure of this form required us to insert the name of Headcount as the Complainants former employer. For the avoidance of any doubt, please note that the Complainant was not taken into the employment of Headcount

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Claimant decided to leave the Respondent’s employment on 23b May 2014. He was not laid off and no RP9 was issued to him. When he verbally requested redundancy, he was advised that the Respondents were not in a position to accede to his request as there was work available for him. It was, also, explained that his position in the company as a health and safety professional was essential.

The Respondent never received an RP9 from the Claimant and the one that was eventually discovered was not properly completed.

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.

I have considered the submissions of both parties. The Claimant’s role as a health and safety professional was crucial to the Respondent continuing their business such as it was. I accept the Claimant had difficulty in being paid on time but this does not concern the 1967 Act.

I therefore accept that there was not a redundancy situation in regard to the Claimant’s job. There the claim is not well founded and it fails.

Dated: 28/03/2017