Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Administrative Worker

A Transport Company

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-00012932-001

02/08/2017

The complainant seeks redundancy payment as she contends that she was advised by her employer that he had no work for her when she returned from Adoptive Leave in February 2017.

The complainant worked as an Administrative worker for the respondent from 18th April 2006 until 8th February 2017. She was on adoptive leave in late 2016 / early 2017, and when she advised the respondent one month before her leave expired, that she was returning to work, she was told by him that there was no work for her. She was told that maybe in six months time or twelve months time there would be work.   She asked for a letter so that she could claim from the Department of Social Protection, and was told in response that she would have to sign a resignation letter for the files.   She signed a letter of resignation which in hindsight she regrets. When she went to the DSP office, she was advised to go to Citizens Advice. The Citizens Advice office told her that she had been made redundant. She submitted a letter dated 20 April 2017 which states that the respondent did not have any work for the complainant at that time.

The solicitor for the respondent argues that this is not a case of redundancy. The complainant never made a claim on the employer for payment of redundancy. The respondent’s evidence is that the complainant had no desire to return to work after her adoptive leave. The respondent was left with the impression that it was a prerequisite for DSP payments that a P45 would issue and so asked the complainant for her resignation in writing. It is the respondent’s that the role the complainant held was not made redundant.   The respondent acknowledges that the letter dated 20 April 2017 was correct in that the respondent had no work for the complainant but this is a separate matter which was the subject of the complainant’s claim for social welfare.

This complaint was submitted under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.   The definition of redundancy as set out in Section 7 (2) of the Act is:

“(2) An employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to –

(a)   The fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b)   The fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c)    The fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d)   The fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained”

From the evidence, there are no circumstances in this instant case that qualify under the redundancy definitions above.

I accept the evidence of the complainant that she was told there was no work for her when she was returning from Adoptive leave. I accept her evidence that she signed the resignation letter under some duress.   I also accept the evidence of the respondent that the complainant gave him the impression that she had no desire to return to work and that he has not made her position redundant.   I find that whatever the circumstances in which the complainant signed a resignation letter, and her regret later to have done so, she formally resigned her position and her position was not made redundant. This complaint is misconceived and it is not upheld.