ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012804
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | General Operative | Manufacturing Company |
Representatives | Andrea Cleere SIPTU | Not present |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00016829-001 | 15/01/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
The Complainant seeks a redundancy payment which the Company contended that he did not qualify for due to his service record. The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent since 2011 with breaks in service. The plant closed and an agreement between the Company and Union included the clause : “Temporary employees, who commenced employment prior to 1 June 2016 and who on the date of termination of their employment, do not qualify for a redundancy payment (less than 104 weeks continuous service), will receive a lump sum payment of €6,500 per person”. It is argued that as the Complainant had almost 4 years accumulated service with the Company that the fact that he was not called back prior to June 2016 should not have been held against him. The Complainant had lodged a grievance about the matter but it was not upheld by the Company. He had been in temporary employment on and off from 2011. He had informed the Company in 2016 that he would be available to be called back for work in May 2016 and he was told that it would be expected that he would be so called back. However, he was not called in until August 2016 and so missed the imposed deadline of June 2016 to qualify for the payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Recommendation:
The clause in the Agreement was designed to give those employees with less than 104 weeks continuous service a redundancy payment. The Complainant was a temporary worker with various breaks of service when he was working elsewhere or studying for further education. I note his expectation that he was to return in May 2016 and this would have given him the required criteria to avail of the payment. I accept his evidence that he was given an indication that he would be re-employed in late May 2016. It seems unreasonable that the Complainant was made redundant from his job, with almost 4 years accumulated service with no compensation when those with less service were so compensated. For this reason, I recommend that the Respondent offer the Complainant the compensatory lump sum of €6,500 in settlement of his claim.
Dated: 30th October 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham