ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00054691

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  24/04/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, 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.  The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Background:

The Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed by way of unfair selection for redundancy.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Company disagrees with some of the dates set out in the complaint form submitted by the complainant:

1. The employment of the complainant commenced on 26/01/2022.
2. The complainant was placed on temporary lay-off on 26/01/2024. He was notified of the layoff situation on 19/01/2024 and paid in full for the week after but as no work was available for him he was not required to attend at work.
3. The reason for the temporary lay off situation was due to the contract that the complainant was employed to work on coming to an end and the Company was awaiting developments on a replacement contract.
4. The complainant sought a letter from the Company to enable him to claim social welfare benefit on 29/01/2024. This letter was provided to him, by email, on 31/01/2024.
5. On 05/04/2024 ER (Director) received a text message from T in SIPTU regarding payment of statutory redundancy for the complainant if the Company could not provide him with work.
6. On the same date the Company received written notice from the Complainant claiming redundancy.
7. On 12/04/2024 the Company processed the complainant’s statutory redundancy. The complaint form submitted by the complainant states that he was made redundant on 22/02/2024 – this is not correct.
8. The Company notes from the complaint form that the complainant took up other paid employment on 03/03/2024 while he was still on temporary layoff.

Substantive Matter:

The Company submits that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed on the ground of unfair selection for redundancy as he himself submitted a claim for redundancy during a period of temporary lay-off. He was at the time of so doing advised by his trade union – SIPTU – that he was entitled to seek redundancy as the Company was not in a position to guarantee him a return to work date.  The Company received the request and related forms on 5th April 2024 and redundancy payment was paid on 12th April 2024.

The Company absolutely refutes the allegation from the Complainant that he was selected for redundancy ‘because he talked too much and didn’t listen’. The Company has no knowledge of any text messages alleging such and certainly if any such text messages do exist they could not have come from any authorised officer of the Company and therefore should be disregarded by the Adjudicator as mere speculation among colleagues of the Complainant.

The Company respectfully requests that the Adjudicator finds in favour of the Company and dismisses the complaint for the reasons stated above in that the Complainant claimed his statutory redundancy and was not unfairly selected for redundancy by the Company.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant contends that he was unfairly dismissed by way of unfair selection for redundancy.   He submits that this came about because of a disagreement he had with the Supervisor/Foreman.

His disagreement over scrap metal happened on 11 January 2024.  He was called in by the Foreman and a Director and laid off on 26 January 2024.  The Complainant was a truck driver and submitted that there was work for him and that others had been taken on in his place.   His only conclusion to having been laid off was his disagreement with his Foreman Mr O’B who subsequently sent a WhatsApp message to colleagues which stated:

“well lads, if anyone bumps into Kevin or over a phone call, could you inform him CTS ARE NOT pulling out of Waterford and it’s best not to speak about CTS in other businesses (btw) or other contractors, if he or Ralph have any issues, don’t hesitate to contact me direct.  This is one of the reasons he was left go for talking about others and not listening.  Have a good wkend.”

The Complainant seeks an extension of time as this information only came to him on 4 October 2024.

Findings and Conclusions:

This complaint was received on 10 October 2024.  The text messages submitted by both sides state that the Employer processed the redundancy on 5 April 2024.

Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Section 41 (8) provides:

“an adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause”.

The cognisable time period as provided for in Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 is from 11 April 2024, unless saved by Section 41 (8).

I find that the evidence of the WhatsApp message submitted as received by the Complainant on 4 October 2024 provides reasonable cause to extend time. 

I note the existence of fairly clear evidence that the Complainant was laid off for reasons other than downturn in work.  I note he claimed redundancy within the statutory time periods as was his right. I find that he was unfairly dismissed due to unfair selection for redundancy.  I consider compensation to be the appropriate redress.  I note he was on temporary layoff from 26 January 2024 and secured new employment on 3 March 2024.  I award him compensation in the amount of €1,200.  This sum is separate from and not inclusive of his statutory redundancy payment.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 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.

Based on the findings and reasons above, I have decided that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and I award him the sum of €1,200 compensation.

Dated:   26th June 2025.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: