Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Denise  Coleman

Dal Riada Language Centre Woodlands Academy

Representatives

 John Corbett

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-00036408-001

29/05/2020

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant gave evidence under affirmation while of the two witnesses in attendance for the respondent, one gave evidence under oath, the other gave evidence under affirmation.

The complainant was employed as a facilities manager from 31/08/2009 until she was made redundant on 27/02/2020

In her initial written submissions, the complainant submitted that she did not receive the correct redundancy payment.  However, shortly before the hearing in written submissions and at the start of the hearing, the complainant submitted that there were two elements to her complaint, firstly that she was unfairly selected for redundancy and secondly that she only received a statutory redundancy payment and that she should have received more than that.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was not unfairly selected for redundancy.  The respondent confirmed that the complainant was not considered for any other role as most of the other roles were for teaching staff for which the complainant was not qualified.

The respondent submitted that all staff made redundant over the last few years were only paid their statutory entitlements.

Preliminary Issues:

In her initial submission dated 29 May 2020, the complainant indicated that her complaint concerned the amount of the redundancy payment only.  In her submission of 10 April 2021, the complainant made reference to unfair selection for redundancy for the first time. The complainant submitted both arguments at the start of the hearing.  The respondent made submissions in response to both arguments but indicated that it had only just been made aware of the additional element of the complainant.

Having regard to the written and oral submissions in relation to unfair selection for redundancy, I find that in this instance (where no reference whatsoever was made to an additional ground for a complaint under a different Act) consideration of an additional complaint 11 months after the initial submission of a complaint would unduly prejudice the respondent.  Accordingly, I find that this element is outside the scope of the complaint referred to me by the Director General.

Substantive complaint:

The complaint appealed the respondent’s decision to pay her statutory redundancy on the basis that other employees who were previously made redundant received Statutory Redundancy plus six weeks.  In response, the respondent indicated that other employees made redundant with the previous two years all received Statutory redundancy only.  The complaint was not able to show evidence or make reference to any former employee made redundant within the previous two years who received anything other than a Statutory Redundancy payment.

Accordingly, having regard to the written and oral submissions, I cannot find in favour of the complainant.

Having regard to the written and oral submissions, my decision is to disallow the complainant’s appeal.

Redundancy Payments Act, appeal against employer decision, disallow