Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Truck Driver

A Transport Company

Representatives

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00018510-001

14/04/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00018510-002

14/04/2018

The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on or around 15th March 2012. The parties confirmed that he was paid €500 gross weekly and worked up to 60 hours a week.

The Complainant claims that he did not receive his statutory redundancy. The Complainant submits that the Respondent was providing transport service as a subcontractor to third party, Company A. The Complainant contends that on 16th March 2018 he received a telephone call from the Respondent informing him that the contract with Company A was terminated. The Complainant claims that he went to Company A’s premises and was offered a job with a new subcontractor who took over the route previously serviced by the Respondent. The Complainant confirmed at the hearing that the Respondent did not dismiss him but offered him another route. The Complainant confirmed that the new route was more convenient in relation to his place of residence and the hours of work would be shorter with the same pay. However, the Complainant stated that he did not accept the position as he does not like changes to his routine and it suited him to remain driving the same route as previously.

The Respondent confirmed that on 16th March 2018 he informed the Compliant that the contract with Company A was terminated with immediate effect after some 16 years. The Respondent submits that he offered the Complainant a new route to drive, which was more convenient both distance and time wise with no loss of earnings. The Respondent submits that the Complainant would still deal with approximately 70% of the clients he had dealt with up to the termination of the contract with Company A. The Respondent submits that the Complainant decided to accept the offer of the new subcontractor and consequently he resigned his position within the Respondent.

The Complainant asserts that he is entitled to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Act. The Respondent denies the claim and asserts that the Complainant resigned his position. The Respondent's position is that the Redundancy Payment Act can only apply where a genuine redundancy exists and that at the time of the Complainant's resignation no such genuine redundancy existed. The Respondent argued that at no stage was the Complainant dismissed or made redundant. The Respondent contended that the Complainant’s position as a truck driver remained opened to him and the Respondent immediately made arrangements to schedule the Complainant on different route. Both parties confirmed that the new route was more convenient for the Complainant.  

The Complainant gave frank and honest evidence. He confirmed that the Respondent informed him immediately of the changes in respect of the contract with Company A. He also confirmed that the Respondent did not dismiss him and an alternative route was offered to him. He confirmed that he did not accept the new arrangement only because he does not like changes to his routine. The Complainant’s evidence transparently demonstrates that he was not made redundant. The Complainant openly accepted at the hearing that he had decided to accept the offer of the new subcontractor of his own volition. Accordingly, no redundancy took place and the Complainant is not entitled to a payment under the Acts.

For the reasons set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-00018510-001 and it is dismissed.

The Complainant submits that he is entitled to notice of termination of his employment by reason of redundancy.

The Respondent rejects the claim. The Respondent submits that the Complainant was not dismissed or made redundant. The Respondent argues that the Complainant resigned of his own volition and accepted a position with a new employer.

The issue of whether the Complainant was dismissed or whether he resigned has been the subject of Complaint No: CA-00018510-001 above. The decision in that case was that the Complainant resigned from his position in the Respondent organisation.

In circumstances where the Complainant resigned from his employment, the entitlement to notice does not arise. Accordingly, the complaint fails.

Having considered the submissions of both parties to this complaint, I declare that the complaint is not well founded.

Redundancy- no dismissal – minimum notice- resignation