ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00026657

Parties: 

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  20/01/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015following 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 the 21st of March 2006 until the 31st of August 2019 when she was made redundant. The complainant was paid €2400 gross (€2200 net per month working a 40-hour week It was submitted that the complainant was unfairly selected for redundancy.

This matter was heard by way remote hearing pursuant to the Civil law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Summary of Respondent’s position

 The respondent is the largest package delivery company and a leading global provider of specialised transportation and logistics services. It operates in more than 220 countries and territories employing 450,000 employees Worldwide.

The complainant was employed by the respondent from March 20th ,2006 in the role of Key Entry Clerk. Her duties involved key entering data from invoices into the respondent’s system.

In June 2019, the complainant was advised that her role was at risk of redundancy. The reason was due to a global restructuring that the business was undertaking. The respondent commenced a period of consultation with the complainant and other employees affected.

Consultation also took place with the European Works Council and the complainants Union. The reason for the redundancy was the global restructuring would see five roles (including the complainant) in the Origin Data Capture (ODC) Team move to the Philippines.

The consultation took place throughout July 2019. A copy of vacancies for the period June 30 to August 31, 2019 has been attached to the submission

No suitable alternative was identified for the complainant. A letter dated July 24, 2019 formally advising the complainant that her post would be made redundant effective from the 31st of August 2019.

The complainant’s redundancy package was six weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlement which totalled €46,852.18 or 82 weeks’ pay

In November 2019, another employee of the respondent who was not affected by the redundancy resigned. The respondent advertised the vacant position in the normal manner.

The complainant’s union wrote to the respondent on 22nd November 2019 querying why the post that was like the position that was held by the complainant was being advertised and seeking an explanation for same.

The respondent investigated the matter and wrote back to the union that the complainant’s role had been made redundant and that the role being advertised was not the same post that had been made redundant.

The respondent position is the role for which the complainant was employed had been relocated to the Philippines. The global restructuring affected many employees, not just the complainant and not just employees based in Ireland.

A proper redundancy process was followed throughout. The respondent engaged with the complainant’s Union on the redundancy process as well as directly with the complainant. At no time during the consultation process did either the complainant or her Union identify an alternative to redundancy.

This is simply that a vacancy did not exists until the resignation in November2019.

The respondent was not aware that the employee was contemplating resigning.

The respondent did not canvas any other employee that were not at risk and neither did the Trade Union ask them.

It was further submitted that at no stage did the complainant’s Trade Union seek that the redundancy programme be open to those employees not at risk.

Finally, the complainant did not mitigate her loss and she did not apply for the position that was advertised.

Summary of the complainant position

In November 2019, the complainant became aware that a full-time position was being advertised by the respondent that was like the role which she performed.  The complainant contacted her union who wrote to the respondent seeking explanation.

 The respondent reply stated that the decision to make the role redundant was part of a global initiative and that the decision was not made in Ireland. It was further stated that the respondent accepted there was an error in some of the job specification in the position that was advertised.

The Union   stated they had no evidence of what (if any) assessments were carried out by the respondent to select the complainant for redundancy.

 It was submitted that the union saw no evidence that a reasonable criterion was applied to all employees in the selection of one for redundancy.

The Union are asking that the dismissal was unfair and are seeking compensation for the complainant on the grounds that not only was the complainant unfairly selected, but the respondent made no attempt to explore alternative work for her. It was added the respondent made no attempt to canvass other workers in the operation in cork to see if any of them were interested in a redundancy.

Findings

Both parties had submitted written submission in advance of the hearing with additional verbal submissions at the remote hearing

 I find based on the documentation that the process commenced with consultation at the European Works Council due to the restructuring that the business was undertaking.

I find that discussion took place directly with the complainant and her Trade Union.

I find that the process used the role was being made redundant the employee carrying out that role was selected for redundancy.

I find that the respondent submitted that the Trade Union did not seek that the redundancy programme be open to other employees, however, the Trade Union submitted that the respondent made no attempt to canvas other workers in the location if any of them were interested in a redundancy package.

I find that the issue arose when the respondent advertised a position in November when an employee resigned.

I find based on submission that the respondent had no knowledge that the employee was going to resign in November 3 months after the complainant had been made redundant.

 I find that the complainant, who is highly thought of by the respondent, did not apply for the position when she became aware of it and by not doing so she missed an opportunity  of getting back into the workforce

I find that there was an onus on the respondent to seek applications for redundancy from other workers  in  the location

I find that process of consultation did take place between all the parties

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I have decided based on the above findings that a genuine redundancy existed, and the complaint for unfair selection for redundancy fails.

Dated:   30/03/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Jim O'Connell

Key Words: Unfair Selection for Redundancy