ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004313
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Dry Cleaners |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00006048-001 | 20 July 2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00006048-002 | 20 July 2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 4 May 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that he commenced employment with the respondent on the 16th October 2006 and this came to an end on the 3rd June 2016. He said that on the day his employment ended, he went to collect deliveries and was asked to speak with the company director on his return. At this meeting, the company director told the complainant that his job was redundant. He was also told that his job was ending that day and he was paid his notice. He was later paid his redundancy lump sum entitlement.
The complainant outlined that the operations director is now doing the deliveries. The complainant had collected items from people’s homes and returned the dry cleaning to them. He outlined that he worked for the respondent for 9.5 years and his employment ended in 10 minutes. He was given no advance warning. He said that they had received no warning of the transfer of undertaking, and that neither the transferor or transferee had complied with their obligations.
In reply to the respondent, the complainant said that a client paid €1,500 per month for dry cleaning services. His work had been as busy as ever. The respondent had not been losing money. The complainant said that “last in, first out” should have been applied, as per the employee handbook. He should have been offered lay-off or short-time. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The company director outlined that the complainant’s issues regarding the transfer of undertaking were made 18 months after the transfer took place. In respect of the complainant’s role, the company director said he looked at the analysis of the costs aligned to deliveries. They now only do four deliveries per week and either he or the operations director does this job. The standalone delivery role is gone. The company director said that he explained to the complainant that his job no longer existed. He gave the complainant the opportunity to work his notice but he chose the option of being paid instead. The delivery role had involved less than one hour’s work per day and was costing the respondent €550 or €600 per week.
In reply to the complainant, the company director said that the client mentioned by the complainant had ended their ongoing arrangement with the respondent. He commented that the operations director was a full-time employee and carried out the deliveries. The complainant’s job was gone and there was no reason for lay-off or short-time. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00006048-001 This is a complaint made pursuant to the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations. The complainant states that the new employer did not provide him with a new contract of employment and that the respondent did not ensure that he retained his terms and conditions of employment. The transfer of undertaking took place on the 29th September 2014. While the complainant raises the lack of information and consultation relating to the transfer, this complaint is made too long after the transfer to award redress. The issues raised by the complainant occurred 18 months after the transfer took place. I find that the respondent’s re-organisation of how it collected and delivered garments was not a breach of the complainant’s terms and conditions of employment.
CA-00006048-002 Section 6(3)(d) of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides that the dismissal of an employee by reason of redundancy is not an unfair ground of dismissal. The definition of redundancy in section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 includes situations where the employer ceases or diminishes a role. I find that the respondent has demonstrated that the delivery function diminished and was henceforth carried out by other employees. The complainant was paid his statutory redundancy lump sum entitlement. The complaint of unfair dismissal is, therefore, not well founded. |
Decisions:
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.
CA-00006048-001 I find that the complaint made pursuant to the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations is not well founded.
CA-00006048-002 For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded. |
Dated: 5th June, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations Unfair Dismissals Act |