Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Driver

A Haulage Company

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00019220-001

16/05/2018

Some three weeks before the termination of the complainant’s employment he was approached by a member of the management of the respondent company, which is a family owned haulage business.

She invited him to meet her in the car park of a local hotel.

In the course of the meeting she told him that the company was losing a contract with a third party and while there would continue to be work for him the precise details of what might be involved had yet to be finalised.

Over the succeeding weeks the complainant had a number of interactions with the same manager about general business matters and at no stage did she refer to the issue of his continuing employment and how it would change.

The complainant’s understanding was that any future work would be of a general haulage nature and not his current work which was bulk milk tanker collection. General haulage would have involved him in overnight absences from home, as he anticipated it.

The company did reduce capacity by one truck on the departure of its driver.

The complainant said at the hearing that he then approached another company to see if it could offer him employment and that he was successful in getting alternative employment.

He conveyed this to a member of the respondent management and told him that he was leaving to take up that alternative employment.

He commenced the week after he left the respondent.

He told the hearing that some weeks after he made his complaint to the WRC he received a letter from the respondent stating that he had no entitlement to redundancy as he had left of his own accord and had told a member of the management team that he had got another job.

The respondent did not attend and did not provide any explanation for its failure to do so. It emerged after the hearing that it had mislaid the notice of the hearing.

The complainant gave frank and honest evidence.

Unfortunately, for the purposes of his complaint that evidence transparently demonstrates that he was not made redundant.

Undoubtedly, the respondent created uncertainty and insecurity in his mind about what future role he might have with the company.

The convening of a meeting on a matter which had very great significance in a hotel car park is somewhat bizarre, to say the least of it. (The complainant also stated that it was raining throughout the meeting and he got soaked).

Then, the respondent’s continuing failure to clarify the complainant’s position also reflects adversely on it as it indicates indifference to the uncertainty it should have known it had created for the complainant. It had a duty towards him to resolve that uncertainty much sooner, or at least update the complainant as to what, if anything, was happening.

However, while the primary obligation to provide this clarification fell on the respondent the complainant had also some obligation to inquire about his position. He did not do so.

He openly accepted at the hearing that he had left of his own volition.

Accordingly, no redundancy took place and he is not entitled to a payment under the Acts.

For the reasons set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-00019220-001 and it is dismissed.

Redundancy, voluntary resignation.