ADJ-00007709

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Former Employee

A Waste Company

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00010065-001

06/03/2017

The complainant had been made redundant in September 2016.

He had entered into a compromise agreement.

Subsequently, it appeared as if the position he vacated was being re-filled. He claims unfair dismissal.

The complainant had worked as a supervisor for the respondent.

Initially he had been ‘Operations Supervisor’.

Following reorganisation in January 2015 his position changed and he became Yard Supervisor.

He became aware of the respondent’s intention to fill a position which he believed was the same as the one he previously occupied and which was made redundant.

He had a continuing engagement as a consultant with the respondent and on a visit to the workplace his attention was drawn to an advertisement for the position in question.

When he reviewed it the job content and title it resembled his former position and led him to believe that his former position was being re-instated.

This means that no genuine redundancy had taken place and that, therefore, he had been unfairly dismissed.

He says that despite having signed a compromise agreement this was an unfair dismissal purporting to be a redundancy.

The respondent says that the agreement entered into by the complainant is a legally binding contract.

He had been legally advised prior to signing it and there had been consideration in the agreement.

In any event, the position which the complainant alleges was his old job is a quite different position even though the wording of the advertisement suggests otherwise. His initial redundancy was a bona fide one.

As will be seen, there are two lines of argument submitted by the respondent.

In the first place, it relies on the contract signed by the complainant as binding him to that outcome.

That is a straightforward matter of law.

That said, I reviewed in some detail with the parties and witnesses whether the advertised position was, in fact that which had previously been held by the complainant.

I easily established that it was not.

The job description bore considerable resemblance to the position occupied by the complainant up to January 2015 and his conclusion on that point is understandable.

In any event, it was very clear from the evidence given at the hearing that the advertisement which gave rise to the complainant’s concerns bore no resemblance to the position actually being filled following very significant disruption and reorganisation.

At the material time the enterprise had been significantly down sized. There was no conceivable role for a position such as the job advertisement admittedly implied. It is hard to believe that this was not apparent to the complainant.

I find therefore that even if the complainant had accepted redundancy terms in the normal way (without a compromise agreement) his case would not succeed.

The fact that he did sign such an agreement is fatal to his complaint and it fails therefore on all grounds.

For the reasons set out above I do not uphold Complaint CA-10065-001 and it is dismissed.

Unfair dismissal, redundancy compromise agreement