Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Agency Worker

An Agency Worker provider

Representatives

Krystian Boino Hoban Boino Solicitors

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-00019618-001

06/06/2018

The Complainant had been engaged as a general operative by the Respondent Agency recruitment company. For ten years, since 2008, the Complainant had been working part time hours on one site being operated by an end user in Blanchardstown.

In 2018, the end user decided to change its internal set up and it explained to the Agency that it no longer would have any requirement for the Complainant and a number of her colleagues.

The Complainant knew she was an agency worker with the Respondent company. The Complainant had had some past experience of being placed as an agency worker in a company that no longer required her services as an agency worker. On that occasion in 2016, the Respondent had communicated alternative positions that it would be happy to place the Complainant in. The Complainant states this is evidence that the Respondent understood how the process should work.

This process was not repeated in 2018. The Complainant had known that she would no longer be required to work in the end user’s plant. This information was communicated to her by the end user in and around early February 2018. The complainant knew her last day of work was the 28th of March.

The Complainant said she was not contacted by the Respondent at any time before the 28th of March for the purpose of explaining what her options might be. There were no alternative job offers or positions made known to her.

The Complainant said she did not respond to an email dated 16th of March from the Accounts Manager of the Respondent company which sought her phone number. This was an oversight on her part.

The Complainant simply stopped working on the 28th of March 2018. The Complainant’s last pay-check was received with holiday pay paid up to date.

Having heard nothing from her Employer, the Complainant dropped in her RP77 form on the 20th of April 2018. There is dispute as to what was said at this meeting. Again, the Complainant heard nothing and it was only after the Complainant’s Solicitor wrote to the Respondent looking for her Redundancy that the Respondent wrote out insisting that the Complainant was its employee and suggesting that work was and continues to be available.

The Respondent says that the Complainant would have been communicated with on several occasions between early February and late March 2018. It states that the Complainant knew that alternative positions were on offer. The Respondent was not able to prove that this was the case. There are no emails and no letters communicating with the Complainant. No first hand oral evidence was provided and the Complainant denies she was offered any alternative work. No witness was available to communicate the Respondent’s position. The Respondent points to the email of the 16th March as evidence that there was communication between employer and employee just before the cessation of work.

The Respondent denies there is any entitlement to Redundancy in circumstances where the Complainant was offered a series of alternative and commensurate positions.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced. I am absolutely satisfied that no real or meaningful effort was made to ensure that the Complainant knew that there was an intention to keep the Complainant on as a long standing and valued member of staff. The Complainant was advised that her job was to end and thereafter no meaningful communication was made. I do not accept that the Respondent should be allowed to rely on one short and ambiguous message of the 16th of March as evidence of their Bona Fides. The Complainant was simply cut adrift on the 28th of March 2018 and the Respondent only re-engaged when forced to after receiving a Solicitors letter.

I am satisfied that the Complainant’s position was gone and she was not given or advised of any alternative work before the termination of that employment. The Complainant was therefore made Redundant.

I am satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence:

The employment started: 28th October 2008

The employment ended: 28th March 2018

Gross weekly wage: €250.00

The Complainant was made aware of the fact that any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952 to 1966.