ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010539

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/06/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014and following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

BACKGROUND.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 27th November 1980 until the employment was terminated by reason of redundancy on 15th March 2017. The Complainant was paid £3000.00 gross per month and he worked 40 hours a week. The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 15th March 2017 stating he was dissatisfied with a decision of a Deciding Officer in relation to his redundancy lump sum.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT’S POSITION

The Complainant stated that he was made redundant on a compulsory basis and was the only one so selected. He asserted that he was treated less favourably than the employees who accepted voluntary redundancy. He stated that he had an initial meeting on 6th January 2017 with named Managers of the Respondent at which he was notified his job was at risk. On the same day he received a letter formally telling him of impending redundancies.

There was a consultation meeting on 14th February 2017 at which he was informed of a consultation meeting on 1st March 2017. He emailed a response that he was unavailable for 1st March 2017. However he was informed that despite the fact that he had a meeting with Personnel he should attend the meeting on 1st March 2017. He responded stating he was not available and stating he was not happy with the tone of her response. A Consultation was agreed for 6th March 2017 but he received an email on the 6th March seeking to reschedule due to unforeseen circumstances. He responded he would not be available on 7th March 2017 and it was proposed they have a telephone conference conversation. A meeting was agreed between the Parties for 15th March

There were separate collective negotiations with the Unions in relation to the Collective Redundancies in relation to an enhanced redundancy package. The Complainant was made an offer of alternative positions within the Company in Castlebar and Roscommon as Quality and Compliance Manager and in the Quality Department but he refused all alternative offers

At the meeting on 14th February 2017 he asked what was the redundancy offer. He was informed it was not an offer but a payment. At the meeting of 15th March 2017 he was informed that he would be paid the agreed enhanced offer agreed with the Unions. The Complainant stated that any effort he made to negotiate his own redundancy package was not entertained. He was informed this would not be entertained. He requested a redundancy package of 5 weeks for every year. He was informed he was to be made redundant. He was afforded five days to appeal which he did on 19th March 2018. This appeal was heard on 31st March 2018. His appeal was rejected.

The Complainant stated that the position of Procurement Manager had been made redundant a position he had not occupied since August 2016 when he was employed on a specific project, named.

SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S POSITION.

The Respondent commenced a restructuring of its business in December 2015 and in negotiations with SIPTU and UNITE and agreement was reached on terms pursuant to an enhanced redundancy package. All issues were considered including lay-off – short time – redeployment – early retirement – carer leave etc. It was agreed that a voluntary request would be issued to the entire workforce upon the agreed package. Over the months some employees came forward seeking the package but the required numbers were not reached and a selection process was invoked. The agreed enhanced package was retained for the compulsory redundancy package.

Each Department was assessed and these were agreed with the Unions. The Complainant was selected, notice was provided and the right to representation was accorded although the Complainant was not a member of either Union. The Complainant was selected along with others and provided with the approved package which enhanced the statutory redundancy payments. In this process some 40 employees, 30% of the workforce, were selected either on a voluntary or compulsory basis for redundancy.

The Complainant appealed the process on 20th March 2017 and a meeting took place. The grounds of his appeal was an email from the MD which referred to the Complainant joining the Label Engineering Team and that “along with other colleagues you would oversee job docket accuracy”. The Complainant also referred the redundancy package disregarded his length of service and commitment to the Company and that other Companies were offering more enhanced packages. The Complainant also asserted his Position of Procurement Manager had been made redundancy and that he did not hold this position since August 2016 when he had been assigned with other colleagues to oversee job docker accuracy. The grounds of his appeal were not upheld on the basis that his position was still that of Procurement Manager and that he was not employed to work only on the named project.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was paid his enhanced redundancy package and did not submit the within complaint until 1 day within the time limits seeking a second bite at the cherry. The Complainant was paid a total redundancy package of £73,476.75.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION.

On the basis of the evidence and cross examination and questioning at the Hearing I find as follows –

There was a Company wide briefing to all employees on 6th January 2017 and the Complainant received a hand delivered letter of the same date in relation to his role of Purchasing Manager which it was stated was no longer required following the restructuring. He was informed of the Respondent’s intention to commence consultation with the employee representatives from both SIPTU and UNITE trade unions and he was also informed he would be invited to attend an individual consultation. There was an informal meeting with the Complainant on 1st February 2017 at which he was informed that the role of Purchasing Manager was to be made redundant. He was also provided with the Job Descriptions of two positions within the Quality Department if he wished to register an interest in either. A formal consultation meeting took place on 14th February 2017 and he was informed of his right to be accompanied. He attended and was accompanied by a work colleague. He was informed of the issues discussed at this meeting in a letter dated 24th February 2017 during which the Complainant informed the Respondent that he did not believe he was qualified for any of the two roles offered to him and that he did not foresee him redeploying to another location within the country due to family commitments. At this meeting the Complainant was also informed that the agreed enhanced redundancy package would be available to him at which the Complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with this as a suitable offering for him.

There was a further meeting with the Complainant on 15th March 2017 during which the Complainant confirmed that he did not wish to register an interest in any other position within the Company that he was issued with formal notice of his redundancy with the required 8 weeks notice. He was afforded a right of appeal which took place on 31st March 2017 and the outcome was to upheld the decision to make his position redundant.

Both Parties confirmed that the Respondent and the Unions, SIPTU and UNITE, had engaged in collective negotiations on a redundancy package which was then circulated to all employees including the Complainant. The Complainant asserted that there were no negotiations with him on a separate enhanced package and he was seeking 5 weeks pay for each year of employment plus expenses. The Complainant asserted he did not accept the collective agreement as negotiated.

I find that the Respondent engaged in an individual consultation with the Complainant from January to March 2017. I find that the Complainant refused to register an interest in any other positions within the Company identified by the Respondent.

I find on the basis of the evidence that the Complainant was employed by the Respondent as Procurement Manager and that his assignment to oversee with other named colleagues as part of a taskforce assembled to oversee job docket accuracy was in addition to his normal role.

The Complainant was afforded a right of appeal of his redundancy which he exercised and the grounds of his appeal of 20th March 2017 were considered in detail and a finding was issued on 31st March 2018 rejecting the appeal.

I find the Complainant was afforded all fair procedures in relation to his selection for redundancy and that he was paid the enhanced redundancy package negotiated by the Trade Unions with the Company. The Complainant did not offer any argument as to why he should have been offered a better package except to say that other Companies were offering better packages than that negotiated by the Unions.

Decision:

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

On the basis of the evidence and my findings above I declare this complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   04/09/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words: