ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007506

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Plasterer	A Plaster and Insulation Company

Representatives

Blazej Nowak

Complaint(s):

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-00010206-001	06/03/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing:

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background:

This complaint was adjudicated upon by way of hearing on 2 August 2017 alongside 22 related complaints brought by this Complainant against this Respondent.

The following facts are common case:

The Complainant commenced work as a plasterer/insulation fitter for the Respondent in 2012. He left his position voluntarily on 8 July 2016 following a disagreement with the Respondent

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

1. When the Complainant started working for the Respondent in 2012 he did so on a piece meal basis

2. In June 2015, the Respondent informed the Complainant that he would be paying in thenceforth on a per hour basis, which the Complainant was unhappy with.

3. This was a unilateral change in the terms and conditions of his employment

4. Section 9.1 (c) of the Redundancy Payment Act 1967, as amended, permits an employee to consider himself as having been made redundant if there is a change in his terms and conditions

5. He voluntarily resigned and was entitled to consider himself as having been made redundant

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

1. The Complainant was not made redundant

2. The work was still there for him and the position was not redundant

3. The Complainant left the employment because he believed that he was owed a day’s pay

4. This was not a redundancy situation

Findings and Conclusions:

1. The Complainant admits to fraudulently claiming social welfare over a period in 2015-16 at a time that he was working for the Respondent.

2. He admits to receiving social welfare when he was at times working 2 or 3 days per week for the Respondent, and yet the Department of Social Protection were paying him social welfare based on a misrepresentation that he was only working one day per week.

3. As a result, of this admitted fraud, I do not find the evidence of the Complainant to be credible

4. Having said that, even if the Complainant’s evidence was credible, taking his case at its height, no redundancy situation pertained.

5. The Complainant admits that left his position because he was unhappy with his terms and conditions.

6. There is no evidence to suggest that the work that he was doing had diminished or that the requirements of his work had lessened.

7. No redundancy situation existed because the work was still required to be done

Decision:

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

For reasons set out in the findings and conclusions, no redundancy situation existed in this case. The work that the Complainant had been doing, was still required to be done. The reason that he left the employment was due to disagreement over his terms and conditions. He does not dispute this. The assertion that section 9.1 (c) of the Redundancy Payment Acts 2000 applies to circumstances where there is a change in a mode of pay or calculation of pay, is misconceived. The essential component of a redundancy entitlement is that the requirement of the role has ceased or diminished, which was not the case here.

I do not find this complaint to be well founded.

Dated: 6 March 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly