Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Part-time Receptionist

A Guest House

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00021919-001

18/09/2018

In 2012, the complainant commenced working for the respondent on reception in a guest house in Dublin. He worked 16 hours each week on Saturdays and Sundays from 3.00pm to 11.00pm. He was made redundant on August 5th 2018 when the premises was leased to Dublin City council as accommodation for homeless people. The complainant claims that his redundancy was an unfair dismissal.

At the hearing, the director of the respondent company gave evidence and he said that in July 2018, they entered into a contract with Dublin City Council (DCC) to rent the guest house for accommodation for homeless people. As a result, four people were made redundant, including the complainant, who worked as a part-time receptionist on Saturdays and Sundays. When the building was leased to DCC, there would be no requirement for a receptionist, as the same people would be living in the house on a consistent basis.   Instead, a security service would be provided, with a security officer walking around the house on an hourly basis.   ~There would be no requirement for people to be checked in and out and also, the number of staff employed in house-keeping was reduced. The staff who worked on reception during the week were offered the work as security officers.

The director said that the met the complainant on June 24th 2018 and he explained to him what was happening. He said that he asked him if he wanted to be made redundant or if he wanted a job in another guest house owned by the respondent. He said that there were shifts available in the other house.   The director said that he complainant was to come back to him with regard to this offer, but that he didn’t appear to be interested.

The director provided a letter in evidence dated July 6th 2018, in which another director confirmed the redundancy of the complainant’s job. In the letter, the complainant was informed that “weekend receptionist will no longer be required as all we require at weekends is security staff only.”   Details of the complainant’s entitlement to a statutory redundancy lump sum of €2,090 was included with the letter.

It is the respondent’s case that, when the guest house where the complainant worked was given to DCC, the complainant was offered an alternative job. The director said that he didn’t express any interest in this job and for this reason, he was made redundant with effect from August 5th 2018.

In his evidence at the hearing, the complainant said that no meeting took place on June 24th at which he was informed about the building’s change of use. He said that he heard rumours about this, that in the future, only council tenants would be living there. He did say however, that the director offered him “a couple of shifts” in another house, but that nothing was definite.

The complainant said that he and his colleague who worked in the guest house at the weekends have been replaced by new people.

The Relevant Law

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act sets out the circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment:

“…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…”

Sub-sections (c), (d) and (e) are not relevant to this complainant’s case.

The Characteristics of Redundancy

In St Ledger v Frontline Distributors Ireland Limited, UD 56/1994, the chairman, Mr Dermot McCarthy remarked that redundancy “has two important characteristics, namely, impersonality and change.” In 2003, the view of the Tribunal in this and other cases led to the amendment of section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act and the insertion of the statement which emphasises that redundancy is impersonal, and “not related to the employee.” The fact that this complainant’s employer changed the type of business in the place where he was employed was in no way related to him, but was an impersonal change in the business. It is my view that the provisions of sub-section (a) and (b) of section 7(2) of the Act include the cessation of a business in a particular place, in this case, the cessation of the use of the house as a guest house. It is my view therefore, that the change in the employer’s business meant that, for this employee, his job was redundant.

Findings

On Friday, July 6th 2018, the complainant was given formal notice in writing that his role was being made redundant in four weeks. It appears that, some days before this letter was issued, there was a discussion between the complainant and one of the directors about this prospect and there was no dispute about the fact that the complainant was offered work in a different guest house.

Communications between the complainant the directors of the company seem to have been rather intermittent, perhaps because the complainant worked at weekends; however, I accept the evidence of the director who attended the hearing when he said that he offered the complainant work in a different house.   The complainant didn’t follow up on this, and he didn’t object to the notice of redundancy, with the result that his employment terminated on August 5th 2018.

From my observation of the parties at the hearing of this complaint, I found the director well disposed towards the complainant and I found no evidence that he didn’t want him to continue in his employment, if he wished to do so. The complainant didn’t express any interest in working in a different house, and for this reason, the redundancy plan was put into effect. From the complainant’s perspective, he appears to be somewhat aggrieved because other people are working in the guest house at weekends as security personnel and he was not offered that option.

Having considered all the evidence presented at the hearing, it is my view that the redundancy of the complainant’s job was properly effected and he received adequate notice that his employment would be terminated because the guest house was to be transferred to homeless accommodation. I find that the director’s decision to appoint other workers to the role of security officer was an operational matter. I also find that it was reasonable for the complainant to be offered a role on reception in another house.

I have reached the conclusion that the complainant’s employment was terminated due to redundancy and I decide that his dismissal was not an unfair.

Redundancy, change, unfair dismissal