ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026308
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self | No attendance |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00033507-001 | 06/01/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 following 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:
The Complaint is concerned with the selection of the complainant for redundancy which occurred on November 26th, 2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was in the employment of the Company as named in this Decision from October 2007 until November 2019. His gross rate of pay at the time of termination was €1707.89. He had worked for the respondent in two different locations. In November 2019 he was employed as a relief/part-time driver and also covered the stores work on a relief basis. He had turned down full time jobs elsewhere previously because he hoped that when a named person retired, he would replace him in the stores job on a full-time basis. When the named person acting on behalf of the Respondent rang him on November 26th, 2019 and began to talk about the store’s person retiring, the complainant thought he was going to be offered the job. Instead he was told that the respondent wanted someone with certain skills for the work in the depot and spoke about reorganising the managers job at the depot. The complainant was told that if he wanted to stay working with the Respondent, he would have to resume work as a full-time driver on the other side of the country. When the complainant said that he did not want the job offered he was told that he would be made redundant on statutory redundancy but would receive an additional €5000 if he accepted the decision that day. The complainant took time to think about his situation and accepted the redundancy because otherwise he would he would have lost the €5000. The letter of November 26th, 2019 from the Respondent referred to making a number of people redundant. The complainant said he would like to know who they were as he was aware that another person took over his driver route on a full-time basis after the complainant was made redundant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As there was no attendance by the respondent and no communication by him with the Workplace Relations Commission, there was no evidence or information available at the hearing other than that presented by the complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
At the hearing and having heard the evidence from the complainant, it was clear that the complaint brought by the complainant does not fall to be considered within the provisions of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations,2006. It was explained to the complainant that the regulations are designed to provide for consultation in situation where, by reference to specified numbers there are what are known as collective redundancies. From the available information, without having any knowledge or evidence that there were in fact collective redundancies to the amounts set out in the regulations or if indeed he was the only one selected for redundancy, his complaint does not fall within the scope of the Regulations. The complainant’s wife who was present at the hearing explained that it may have been her doing when completing the choices under the relevant drop-down box on the online form. It was explained to the complainant that an adjudicator cannot simply hear a complaint which was not made under appropriate legislation-that a respondent must be put on notice of a complaint and allowed to respond to that complaint. In this case, the only complaint submitted, and which was notified to the respondent for the hearing was under the Protection of Employment Regulations of 2006. It was explained that a decision under the legislation under which the complaint was lodged would issue. The complainant was advised that he should take advice from an appropriate person or body as to what course of action he could follow if he wished to pursue a case against his employer regarding his dismissal adding that as an independent adjudicator it is not the role of the undersigned to give such advice. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 11A of the European Communities (Protection of Employees) Regulations require that I make a Decision regarding a contravention of Sections 9 or 10 of those Regulations.
The complaint made by the Complainant against the Respondent under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 was not well founded. |
Dated: 25-08-2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Collective Redundancies |