Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Larisa  Popusoi

Canon (Irl) Business Equipment Ltd

Representatives

David Montgomery Solr.

Thomas Montgomery & Son

Ciaran Loughran

IBEC

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-00036544-001

05/06/2020

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely.

I am satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

I can confirm that I explained to the parties the immediate impact that the recent Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) has had on how WRC hearings must now proceed. In particular, I have indicated that hearings must now (and in the interests of transparency in the administration of Justice) be open to the public. I have additionally informed the parties that in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered. In this regard I have explained that emergency legislation is pending which will empower Adjudicators to administer said oath. The parties were happy to proceed in the absence of said oath/affirmation.

The Complainant issued a workplace relations complaint form on the 5th of June 2020.  She seeks redress under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. The specific complaint was that she did not receive her correct Redundancy payment and that the package paid to her was less than she had expected. In the complaint form, the Complainant referenced a Redundancy in the same workplace 8 months previously, where a more generous package had been given. The Complainant herein was represented and the Complainant’s Solicitor made submission on her behalf.

The Respondent maintains that its only obligation is to pay Statutory Redundancy. This obligation is outlined under the Contract of Employment governing the Employment relationship. In addition, the Respondent has asserted that as Adjudicator I cannot award an enhanced Redundancy package as the jurisdiction of the Adjudication process is limited to the Statutory Redundancy contained in the Acts.  The Respondent says it has already paid Statutory Redundancy.

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the parties herein. The Complainant is one of seven individuals who came before me over the course of three days to have the issue of Statutory Redundancy adjudicated upon.

The Complainant herein joined the company OCT in and around July 2009. OCT was taken over by the Respondent Company in and around 2013. The Merger involved the transfer of some 800 employees. There was some correspondence from the time of the merger which had been sent to all employees between January and May of 2013. The Terms and conditions of Employment were made known to the Employees at this time. One of the Respondent’s clients was a well-known pharmaceutical company. As I understand it, the Complainant’s job was to process the invoices which were being generated across the whole of Europe for and by the said Pharma company. The Complainant said she was first made aware that there were problems in the workplace in and around March of 2020.  On or about the 1st of April 2020 she became aware that her position was being made redundant as the entire operation was being moved to Prague. The Complainant appealed this decision (to make her Redundant) and the Appeals process was engaged in while she was still in employment, but the Redundancy proceeded on the 3rd of June 2020.

I understand that the Complainant and her colleagues were provided with some general documentation giving information concerning the process of how a Redundancy would apply to the workplace (frequently asked questions etc.). I accept that the provision of such documentation included information/descriptions only ever intended to apply in the UK plant. This gave rise to confusion and subsequent annoyance as the Redundancy packages applicable in the UK were better than the one being applied in Ireland.

I heard evidence regarding the Complainant’s belief that she should have been given an enhanced package over and above her Statutory Redundancy. I understand that the in-house Appeals process was largely taken up with the issue of whether the Complainant had an entitlement to an enhanced Redundancy package. The Respondent explained that the only persons entitled to enhanced Redundancy packages in Ireland were at Management level. The Complainant continues to be dissatisfied at having been excluded from a Redundancy scheme over and above Statutory Redundancy.

The Complainant believed she had in fact been discriminated against though conceded she was not at the said Management level. In any event the Complainant had not made a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts and simply expressed a general dissatisfaction.

I heard evidence from a Ms. R on behalf of the Respondent company who gave evidence that all of the 800 employees who had been brought in from OCT were being treated in the same way. The Company accepted that Redundancy policies that operated in the UK were different to what was applicable in Ireland and that had caused some confusion.

I have explained to the Complainant that I am not in a position to direct payment over and above Statutory Redundancy. The Redundancy Payment Acts limit my jurisdiction to Statutory Redundancy only.

A number of anomalies arose in the course of the hearing regarding calculating the correct figures for the Statutory Redundancy payments and I extend my thanks to the Complainant’s Solicitor for spotting these errors. The Respondent conceded it had miscalculated the figures (albeit in small amounts). The Respondent had not included the Annual Bonus which had been paid Annually and formed as part of the basic remuneration package. In addition, the figures had been calculated 2 months before the actual Redundancy took place meaning two months of service were not calculated. In the circumstances, and with the agreement of the parties, the Respondent agreed to submit renewed figures (to the WRC) and to make up the differences between packages paid and what should be paid. I confirm I have received this spreadsheet and my decision is made inclusive of the updated figures provided.

I accept that the Complainant’s job was made redundant, and I accept that the Complainant was entitled to be paid redundancy pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014.

The issue of Notice was not before me, but I understand that any Notice payment already made will also be updated so as to reflect the new Gross weekly figure calculated by the Respondent.

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

CA-00036544-001

I am satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence:

The employment started: 13th July 2009

The employment ended: 3rd of June 2020

Gross weekly wage: €554.96

The Complainant was made aware of the fact that any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952 to 1966.The Complainant withdrew her claim under the Unfair Dismissals legislation.